Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Sun Sep 1, 2013, 12:01 PM Sep 2013

Doctors Without Borders confirmed: "mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent" [View all]

<...>

On August 24, MSF announced that three hospitals it supplies in Syria’s Damascus governorate had reportedly received 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms, of which 355 died. Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required, and therefore called for an independent investigation to shed light on what would constitute, if confirmed, a massive and unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law.

MSF also stated that in its role as an independent medical humanitarian organization, it was not in a position to determine responsibility for the event. Now that an investigation is underway by United Nations inspectors, MSF rejects that our statement be used as a substitute for the investigation or as a justification for military action. MSF's sole purpose is to save lives, alleviate the suffering of populations torn by Syrian conflict, and bear witness when confronted with a critical event, in strict compliance with the principles of neutrality and impartiality.

The latest massive influx of patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in Damascus governorate comes on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation facing the Syrian people, one characterized by extreme violence, displacement, the destruction of medical facilities, and severely limited or blocked humanitarian action.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7033&cat=press-release

The comparisons between Syria and Iraq are absurd. Iraq had no WMD. There was a chemical attack in Syria.

The question is not if there was an attack, but the type of substance used.

The U.S. government is gathering and presenting its evidence, including information on the source of the attacks. The DWB statement mentions the UN investigation.

Syria: Ban briefed by UN disarmament chief on latest developments - UN spokesperson

31 August 2013 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today met with the top United Nations disarmament official, just back from Damascus, on the chemical weapons investigation and the latest developments in Syria. The meeting comes as the UN inspection team arrived in the Netherlands earlier today to carry out a rapid analysis of samples gathered.

UN Spokesperson Martin Nesirky told reporters in New York that Mr. Ban met with UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane for over an hour.

“Ms. Kane briefed the Secretary-General on her trip and on the current status of the investigation,” Mr. Nesirky said, adding that that she thanked the Syrian Government and opposition for their cooperation during this mission. Ms. Kane had been in Damascus, at Mr. Ban's request, meeting with the Syrian Government to facilitate access for the team of inspectors, who arrived on 18 August.

<...>

The inspection team, led by Swedish scientist Dr. Åke Sellström, is now in The Hague, the headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon (OPCW), which is assisting the probe, along with the UN World Health Organization (WHO).

- more -

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45744&Cr=Syria&Cr1=


99 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So what? It was a false flag operation connected to cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #1
What has this (what ever it is , have to do with the UN reports ? lumpy Sep 2013 #57
Somehow you forgot this part TomClash Sep 2013 #2
No one has been claiming that the DWB could certify the "precise origin of the exposure pnwmom Sep 2013 #4
Then why did MSF issue this press release? Nt TomClash Sep 2013 #16
To underline the fact that they are a neutral organization pnwmom Sep 2013 #17
Oh please TomClash Sep 2013 #19
No. They didn't want people to think that they were asserting more than they were. pnwmom Sep 2013 #21
What nonsense TomClash Sep 2013 #37
It says what I said it did. They couldn't pnwmom Sep 2013 #40
Only in your mind. lumpy Sep 2013 #58
Yes indeed - Israeli intel, it seems. JackRiddler Sep 2013 #27
Where does the OP attribute "precise origin" to DWB? ProSense Sep 2013 #5
It doesn't TomClash Sep 2013 #18
The "primary purpose" doesn't take away from the fact that they confirmed the situation. n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #26
But TomClash Sep 2013 #36
What? Are you saying that DWB didn't make the statement in the OP? n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #38
First the OP is YOU TomClash Sep 2013 #41
"OP" means original post. A post is not a "person" ProSense Sep 2013 #43
You are obfuscating the point TomClash Sep 2013 #78
That part supposidly that the MSF issued a press release to criticize Obama and Kerry....Where did lumpy Sep 2013 #66
It's in the first paragraph TomClash Sep 2013 #76
Are you the board chairman for MSF? tabasco Sep 2013 #62
A good question that just might be difficult to answer. lumpy Sep 2013 #67
Maybe because I TomClash Sep 2013 #74
There hasn't been much doubt of WHAT. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #3
That question ProSense Sep 2013 #6
The U.S. gov't doing the work of the people, or the bidding of the mic?... polichick Sep 2013 #7
You don't have to ProSense Sep 2013 #8
The US government has presented evidence before atreides1 Sep 2013 #9
Oh brother. The Iraq evidence of WMD that didn't exist? ProSense Sep 2013 #10
He is saying that government justifications for war have been shown to be incorrect daleo Sep 2013 #24
This is about Syria not Iraq. Be cynical if you please. lumpy Sep 2013 #60
The "evidence" appears to come from sources BlueMTexpat Sep 2013 #13
You know, ProSense Sep 2013 #14
We will just have to agree to disagree for now. BlueMTexpat Sep 2013 #15
Um, I think you forgot your thread of yesterday. Savannahmann Sep 2013 #28
No, I didn't ProSense Sep 2013 #34
"The MSF has reason to suspect that agents other than the assad regime may have caused the lumpy Sep 2013 #63
The USG just blocked complete investigation... JackRiddler Sep 2013 #29
Actually, ProSense Sep 2013 #69
Incredible how full of it your posts are. JackRiddler Sep 2013 #93
So now you're claiming the UN is lying? n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #94
Same old same old same old JackRiddler Sep 2013 #95
You are deflecting. You made a claim about the UN, and then dismissed the UN statement. n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #96
Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. JackRiddler Sep 2013 #97
Less than 10% deaths WovenGems Sep 2013 #11
No, that was at the time of the statement, which was only days after the incident ProSense Sep 2013 #12
Dude, that's 10% of people who MADE it to the hospital. Barack_America Sep 2013 #32
Pooh-poohing nerve gas' effectiveness. God, this place is classy today. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2013 #35
"Classy" is DU's middle name these days. nt Hekate Sep 2013 #83
You didn't read MFrohike Sep 2013 #20
I can read, the ProSense Sep 2013 #22
Sigh MFrohike Sep 2013 #23
Oh God I have to get the hell out of here. Like being in an insane asylum. lumpy Sep 2013 #70
There, there. Sometimes consensual reality ... Hekate Sep 2013 #87
They have expilicitly objected to being used for propaganda purposes. rug Sep 2013 #25
"They have explicitly stated they do not know who used chemicals." ProSense Sep 2013 #31
"They have expilicitly objected to being used for propaganda purposes." rug Sep 2013 #33
Right, ProSense Sep 2013 #39
And not by whom. rug Sep 2013 #44
Yes, we've established that DWB didn't state the origin. ProSense Sep 2013 #45
The distinction between discussion and propaganda is honesty. rug Sep 2013 #46
You can't be serious? ProSense Sep 2013 #47
There can be no more serious discussion, even on the internet, than talking about killing people. rug Sep 2013 #48
Well, ProSense Sep 2013 #49
Reading DU is hardly policing the internet. rug Sep 2013 #52
No, ProSense Sep 2013 #54
Are you saying it does not support your view of attacking Syria or rug Sep 2013 #55
What the hell are you talking about? n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #59
Read the thread. Communication is a two way street. rug Sep 2013 #64
You appear to be having a discussion with yourself. n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #65
Don't flatter yourself. rug Sep 2013 #68
Do you think the UN report (MSF) supports anyone's view of attacking Syria ? lumpy Sep 2013 #73
MSF and UN members are not permitted to draw political conclusions as to who is responsible lumpy Sep 2013 #71
You misread it. It is: if it turns out the attack came from one of the opposition forces. rug Sep 2013 #72
Oh thanks, you didn't make that clear. I haven't made up my mind as yet, if you really care. lumpy Sep 2013 #75
Distraction to pimp for current administration policy... JackRiddler Sep 2013 #30
"So? Everyone knows there was a chemical attack." ProSense Sep 2013 #42
They've moved on from "Do we even know there was a chemical attack" and "So what if there was?" alcibiades_mystery Sep 2013 #50
What source proves that the rebels were supplied by Saudis ? lumpy Sep 2013 #79
Chemicals, schmemicals CakeGrrl Sep 2013 #84
Did they also confirm who perpetrated the attack? n/t Cerridwen Sep 2013 #51
No they didn't. They are prevented to draw conclusions as to who perpetuated the gas attack. lumpy Sep 2013 #81
scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required - meaning it's not confirmed by MSF idwiyo Sep 2013 #53
That's a reference to the type of "toxic agent" ProSense Sep 2013 #56
MSF does not confirm anything. MSF clearly stated they had second hand info. MSF also idwiyo Sep 2013 #77
So ProSense Sep 2013 #80
You used a misleading OP title to add weight to your statement. MSF does not confirm what you insist idwiyo Sep 2013 #82
It most certainly confirmed that a "toxic agent" was used. I mean, ProSense Sep 2013 #86
I am quoting MSF, not making unfounded pronouncemnts liike you do. idwiyo Sep 2013 #88
No, you're dismissing the orgnaization's statements as "second hand reports." ProSense Sep 2013 #89
Another misleading statement from you. Not surprising though. idwiyo Sep 2013 #90
More nonsense from you. ProSense Sep 2013 #92
The only nonsense before your latest response was the title of your original OP. idwiyo Sep 2013 #99
I am gone. This is too much. Clearly there is lack of reading comprehension, a lot of ignorance, lumpy Sep 2013 #85
Throw 'em under the bus! tabasco Sep 2013 #61
I like the fact that Doctors Without Borders want an independent investigation David Krout Sep 2013 #91
Do you remember the memes that Iraq had chemical WMD because we sold them to Saddam... freshwest Sep 2013 #98
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Doctors Without Borders c...