US: chemical weapons have been used in Syria

only Twitter posts thus far:

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters 1m

U.S. intelligence confirms "to some degree of varying confidence" Syria used chemical weapons on small scale: defense secretary #breaking

Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews 48s

US Defense Secretary Hagel says US intelligence confirms with 'some... confidence' that Syria has used chemical weapons - @Reuters, @AP

Shannon Bream ‏@ShannonBream 2m

BREAKING: SenMcCain says he received letter from PresObama saying Syria HAS used chemical weapons

Jon Williams ‏@WilliamsJon 4m

Hagel: US cannot confirm origin of the sarin, but they believe it originated with the Assad regime. #Syria

HAGEL: SYRIA HAS USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS

so that's huuuge news, the US/Obama has painted itself in a corner with its tough stance and words. The US to act now.

ETA:

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters 1m
White House: U.S. intelligence assessments on Syria chemical weapons are not enough; credible and corroborated facts needed #breaking

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters 1m
White House: U.S. prepared for "all contingencies" on Syria to respond to any confirmed use of chemical weapons" #breaking

Except these are the real terrorists using deadly chemical weapons in the video below.

This must be the chemical weapons they are talking about, right?

reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

Yeah... Given how many were killed? It sure wasn't a Mustard or VX Gas warhead from regular military production. That would have cleared a part of a city ...not just a couple dozen unfortunate victims.

It drives me crazy sometimes, how ignorant they all assume we MUST be. Iraq used chemical weapons ..*REAL ONES* on the Kurds and the world has the stills and video imagery of what that looks like to have happen to a civilian population in the modern world. No one need debate it or wonder if it actually happened. No one needs a politician like Hagel to tell them it happened. It was sickeningly hard to miss and impossible to deny with a straight face. So too were the use against Iranian troops in the Iran/Iraq war.

When NATIONS use what military factories produce in a formal weaponized version? It's a spectacular impact on the human life ....one beyond ALL questions. If Assad uses them, the world will be telling HAGEL about it, not the other way around. They really take us for outright fools...and it's getting beyond old. It's outright insulting.

the White House letter to McCain:

www.mccain.senate.gov...

I HIGHLY doubt it was the Syrian govt tha used it. If anything it was the Syrian rebels or even the US that used them. The amount used indicates it wasn't Syria. What benefit would they gain? Kill a few people they couldve killed with guns...and the whole world will hate them more...What benefit would the rebels gain if Syria was implicated as using them? The whole world would have a reason to overthrow the Syrian govt.

Can't we just give chemical weapons to both sides and let them kill each other? Whoever wins is still going to hate us and cheer death to America, so why not simply hasten their efforts? The Syrian government hates us, and the rebels are frickin' Al Queda! Not even a lesser of two evils to choose from here... Why the hell even get involved?

Has anyone in the mass media gave a name to the "chemical weapons" like VX/Sarin nerve or Mustard gas?

reply to post by springtime


I heard it was Sarin on the BBC this morning...

But I agree, what possible benefit would this have gained the Syrian Government, if they did do it it was bloody stupid. I have actually been won round, to an extent, by their claims the rebels are jihadi's as it would appear that a good segment of them are. I'd rather a secular Assad Government in Syria than a bunch of Islamist nutjobs.

Assad was, in the near past anyway, quite "pro-West".. He didn't rock the boat and was open to a certain amount of reforms, as well as making sure the many different religions and ethnicities in Syria were all respected. If the rebels win, I am quite sure we'd see the Islamists take over Syria. There are secular rebels in the FSA, but they are losing out to the better funded jihadi's like Al Nusra. It is something the FSA was warning the West about 12+ months ago, that without proper support, the Islamists would win and there would be no democracy.

reply to post by Gazrok


issue is both parties have the potential to cause havok upon themselves, the other side and innocents.

I detest war but unfortunately, it is just part of life.

reply to post by Thurisaz


Any "innocent" within a hundred miles of the place should have enough sense to get the hell out of there and pick another piece of dirt...while these two groups kill each other...because that IS what is going to happen...sure as sunrise.

reply to post by Gazrok


True, to a point, but many are trapped in places and trying to leave is as dangerous as staying put. The Dispatches program (On Channel 4 in the UK) I watched last week showed people fleeing the cities to the villages, looking for safety with family, only to be either caught in the crossfire there, or in transit. Some of the images I saw of the children and others caught up in this are burnt into my mind...

Originally posted by Gazrok
Can't we just give chemical weapons to both sides and let them kill each other? Whoever wins is still going to hate us and cheer death to America, so why not simply hasten their efforts? The Syrian government hates us, and the rebels are frickin' Al Queda! Not even a lesser of two evils to choose from here... Why the hell even get involved?

Couldn't agree with you more. Why shouldn't the Syrians use chemical weapons? They are just as bad as TNT, bullets explosives.. What makes chemical weapons soooo bad. The Syrian government is being attacked by terrorists and the defacto armies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar so they have every right to fight back.

What makes chemical weapons so morally bad?

Perhaps the USA, UK (NATO) etc.. are looking for an excuse to get militarily involved methinks.

US: chemical weapons have been used in Syria

I think it would be more appropriate and truthful if you took the 'colon' out of your headline.

Somebody's feedin' somebody these chemical weapons, and they're doing it for a reason!

Just sayin'

reply to post by ispyed


Well, the Geneva conventions say they cannot be used because they are a terror weapon - they have little tactical use aside from sending the opposition into a tizzy. Plus, they are pretty nasty weapons to use, are unreliable and indiscriminate.

Form the number of killed 50-100 how can it be sarin gas
Now if it's CS gas being used the numbers make sense

reply to post by stumason


True, and since they have officially declared it as a "civil war", it falls under the rules, as far as international law is concerned.

I'm still on the "we shouldn't get involved" bandwagon for this.