Certainly one potential explanation.Ducado said:In answer to the first part he is not in full control of the military and he never has been
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.542849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... m-1.542849</a>However, Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used, although they all emphasize that serious conclusions cannot be reached without thorough on-site examination.
Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army's Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: "None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear," he says, "and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed." This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that "there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control."
Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at England's Cranfield University who has worked with Britain's Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that "from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in ,and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here."
Additional questions also remain unanswered, especially regarding the timing of the attack, being that it occurred on the exact same day that a team of UN inspectors was in Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical weapons use. It is also unclear what tactical goal the Syrian army would have been trying to achieve, when over the last few weeks it has managed to push back the rebels who were encroaching on central areas of the capital. But if this was not a chemical weapons attack, what then caused the deaths of so many people without any external signs of trauma?
"One alternative is that a large concentration of riot control agents were used here, which could have caused suffocation of large numbers of people who were pressed together in a bunker or underground shelter," says Gwyn Winfield, a veteran researcher and editor of CBRNe World, a professional journal the effects of chemical, biological and nuclear warfare. While riot-control substances, mainly various types of tear gas, are usually deployed in small quantities using hand-grenades, they can be used in much larger quantities in artillery shells or even dropped in barrels from aircraft as the U.S. Army did in Vietnam, trying to flush the Vietcong out of its underground bunkers. In large concentrations, these substances can cause suffocation, especially in closed spaces where many of the Syrian families would have been hiding from the bombing.
Another possible explanation for the casualties is that a large bomb, or a number of bombs, created a fireball that sucked the air out of the nearby building for a short period of time, causing the asphyxiation of those inside. The Syrians have extensively used fuel-air bombs, which create a large vacuum beneath the blast and could have lead to many such casualties.
A report by the group said patients had arrived in three facilities it supports in the Damascus governorate on August 21, when opposition activists claim chemical attacks were launched against rebels.
The report appears to be the most concrete information yet that chemical weapons were used.
“Medical staff working in these facilities provided detailed information to MSF doctors regarding large numbers of patients arriving with symptoms including convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress,” said Dr Bart Janssens, MSF director of operations.
“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr Janssens. “However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events—characterised by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons.”
US commanders have prepared a range of "options" for Mr Obama if he chooses to launch an attack on the Damascus regime, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said earlier. Mr Obama has described the alleged attacks as "troublesome" and of "grave concern". Britain has directly blamed the Assad regime.
But he declined to provide any details on the positioning of US troops and assets.
US officials are meeting at the White House today to discuss their options, including possible military action.
The Syrian government on Saturday said the rebel fighters had used chemical weapons, countering the charges that the Assad regime was behind the attacks.
State television ran footage of "barrels filled with highly dangerous toxic and chemical agents" as well as gas masks, saying they were only a small sample of what had been unearthed in overrunning rebel positions.
The rebels "used these agents to try to halt the advance of the army," it said.
Iran, the chief regional ally of the Assad regime, also said there is "proof" rebels used chemical weapons.
The Syrian opposition has dismissed such claims.
Syria: Cameron and Obama threaten 'serious response'
The UK and the US have threatened a "serious response" if it emerges Syria used chemical weapons last week.
Prime Minister David Cameron and President Barack Obama spoke on the telephone for 40 minutes on Saturday.
Both were "gravely concerned" by the "increasing signs that this was a[n]... attack carried out by the Syrian regime", Mr Cameron's office said.
But intervention would have serious consequences and the US case was weak, the Syrian information minister warned.
In an interview with Lebanese TV, Omran Zoabi said: "If the US leads a military intervention, this will have dangerous consequences. It will bring chaos and the region will burn."
The Syrian government has denied any use of chemical weapons, blaming rebel fighters instead.
State television reported on Saturday that soldiers had found chemical agents in tunnels used by the rebels to the east of Damascus.
It broadcast images of gas masks and plastic containers, but nothing to support official statements that soldiers had "suffered from cases of suffocation" when rebels used poison gas "as a last resort" after government forces made "big gains" in the suburb of Jobar.
Opposition activists accuse forces supporting President Bashar al-Assad of killing between 500 and more than 1,000 civilians in several suburbs east and west of capital in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
They want the areas inspected by UN chemical weapons experts who are already in Damascus to investigate other suspected attacks.
The UN's disarmament chief, Angela Kane, arrived in Damascus on Saturday to press the authorities for access.
Iran's Irna state news agency reported that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem had told his Iranian counterpart that Damascus was "co-operating" with the UN experts and "preparing the opportunity for them to visit areas which have been attacked chemically by terrorist groups".
'Gathering facts and evidence'
"The UN Security Council has called for immediate access for UN investigators on the ground in Damascus," Downing Street said in a statement.
"The fact that President Assad has failed to co-operate with the UN suggests that the regime has something to hide."
It said Mr Cameron and Mr Obama had "reiterated that significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response from the international community and both have tasked officials to examine all the options".
The statement said the two men had agreed it was "vital that the world upholds the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons and deters further outrages".
They would keep in "close contact", it added.
The US president earlier convened his National Security Council to discuss options on Syria.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said the American military, which is repositioning naval forces in the Mediterranean, was ready to act.
"President Obama has asked the defence department to prepare options for all contingencies. We have done that and we are prepared to exercise whatever option - if he decides to employ one of those options," he told reporters in Kuala Lumpur.
BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said he understood that the "serious response" mentioned in the UK statement would not include "boots on the ground".
But a range of other options was not ruled out, he said, potentially including air strikes.
On Sunday, Iran's deputy armed forces chief, Massoud Jazayeri, warned the US against crossing the "red line" on Syria, saying it would have "severe consequences", according to the Fars news agency.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23830590" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23830590</a>
Forzacitizens said:Americans saying there is 'very little doubt' that Syrian government used chemical weapons.
However, they've just given the go ahead to the UN to undergo a weapons inspection.
If they have used chemical weapons, why would they let the UN in?
johnny on the spot said:Forzacitizens said:Americans saying there is 'very little doubt' that Syrian government used chemical weapons.
However, they've just given the go ahead to the UN to undergo a weapons inspection.
If they have used chemical weapons, why would they let the UN in?
Because they haven't got any chemical weapons. They just used them all on civilians.
Sheikh said:Just nuke all these shithole countries.
Forzacitizens said:Americans saying there is 'very little doubt' that Syrian government used chemical weapons.
However, they've just given the go ahead to the UN to undergo a weapons inspection.
If they have used chemical weapons, why would they let the UN in?
bonespost said:The West routinely drone attacks alleged al-Qaeda - then comes to its aid in Syria.
Gelsons Dad said:Forzacitizens said:Americans saying there is 'very little doubt' that Syrian government used chemical weapons.
However, they've just given the go ahead to the UN to undergo a weapons inspection.
If they have used chemical weapons, why would they let the UN in?
Because if they have used a none persistent binary of one of the Russian Novichok agents there may be little detectable trace remaining by now.
Sheikh said:Just nuke all these shithole countries.
laserblue said:Pandora's box is about to be opened. Assad and his murderous crew need to be removed but supplying arms to a rag bag temporary coalition (my enemy's enemy and all that) is asking for trouble.
When the dust settles there'll be another civil war as the pro-Democracy factions and Christian minority get crushed by Islamists, Al-Qaeda, regional warlords, sundry criminals & etc. Did nobody learn from the Libyan situation after the overthrow of Gaddafi?
BimboBob said:Apparently we are 'going' in.
Expected. Well we can't launch fixed Wong from sea anymorepaphos-mcfc said:BimboBob said:Apparently we are 'going' in.
From a friend here, the 'base' at Akrotiri is very active, lots of personnel moving around.
mancitymick said:Expected. Well we can't launch fixed Wong from sea anymore