Syria Calls Obama's Bluff, Uses Nerve Agent GB (Sarin)

[unokitty]

"President Barack Obama has talked tough in trying to dissuade Syrian President Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons against the rebels in Syria’s civil war, warning it would be a “red line” and a “game changer.”

Now, Assad has called his bluff, and Obama wants time and space to decide what comes next."
--Politico

White House: US believes Syrian regime used chemical weapons
--USNews

Assad attacked rebels with nerve gas, top IDF analyst says
--Times of Israel

U.S.: Intelligence points to small-scale use of sarin in Syria
--CNN

US has never used Sarin (GB) in wartime. However in a 1969 accident, 23 Americans were exposed to GB.


Obama's red line crossed.

Anyone want to explain what Obama meant when he warned Syria that use of nerve gas would be a "game changer?"

The world wonders ...


Uno

 

[Matt1970]

I am curious as to what this evidence is?

"The White House said Thursday that the U.S. believes "with some degree of varying confidence" the Syrian government has used chemical weapons — specifically the nerve agent sarin — against its own people."

 

[chucky2]

How do they know it's not a use of sarin to pull the US in against Assad?

 

[Fern]

I am curious as to what this evidence is?
-snip-

I'm thinking it's the dead bodies that were examined.

Fern

 

[spacejamz]

I am curious as to what this evidence is?

"The White House said Thursday that the U.S. believes "with some degree of varying confidence" the Syrian government has used chemical weapons — specifically the nerve agent sarin — against its own people."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/23/syrian-regime-chemical-weapons-israeli

Brun cited photographs of victims that showed them foaming at the mouth and with contracted pupils as signs that gas had been used. "To the best of our understanding, there was use of lethal chemical weapons. Which chemical weapons? Probably sarin," Brun told a conference organised by the Institute for National Security Studies.

Reported by the Isrealis and cannot remember if the Guardian is a reliable source or not....

 

[Doppel]

Still doesn't add up.

If Assad has been given a very plausible warning by the US, why go so small scale? Either do nothing, or go big. Using them "just a tiny little bit" really just does not make sense and fails my sniff test.

Some other possible options:

1) A rogue commander used them, irrespective of Assad's wishes
2) Rebels used some on themselves (false-flag)
3) There were not actually used
4) Assad did order them and is about to go full retard, in which case this particular matter will be overridden by a future more awful one, removing any doubt at all

BTW, no secrets I asked months ago why the US wasn't using everybody in Assad's circle as target practice. He is a terrible person and has a good chance of not living through this civil war, but I still see this recent news as strange.

 

[Anarchist420]

I want Assad to stay in power because the rebels will oppress us/start going into western countries if they're ever free enough to do so.

Just as homogenous, civilized nations like Israel don't need to be governed, the largely savage and ideologically divided Arabs/Muslims need a damn isolationist despot like George Washington to rule them.

 

[thraashman]

I want Assad to stay in power because the rebels will oppress us/start going into western countries if they're ever free enough to do so.

Just as homogenous, civilized nations like Israel don't need to be governed, the largely savage and ideologically divided Arabs/Muslims need a damn isolationist despot like George Washington to rule them.

Every so often you decide to top yourself in ridiculousness.

 

[peonyu]

Ill believe it once we dig up some REAL WMDs in Iraq [pressure cookers dont count!].

 

[Fern]

Still doesn't add up.

If Assad has been given a very plausible warning by the US, why go so small scale? Either do nothing, or go big. Using them "just a tiny little bit" really just does not make sense and fails my sniff test.
-snip-

It was a tactical use.

And/or he doesn't take Obama's threat seriously. Would Obama's response to Benghazi ("Oh well, fvck it. I'm going to Vegas") or Iran's put down of protesters etc., or anything for that matter, inspire fear of reprisal? I don't think so.

Even if Obama were dead serious, I have to wonder what the heck he can actually do that is of material significance.

Fern

 

[Nintendesert]

Assad is using Saddam's chemical weapons! WAR WAR WAR!



How about we just let those people in that part of the world the fuck alone and deal with our own problems.

 

[OutHouse]

, why go so small scale?

to test the worlds reaction. nothing is going to happen so he will do it again, small scale to keep the heat off from the UN and also scare the living shit out of the rebels.

 

[5150Joker]

What I want to know is why anyone in the US or government cares what Syria does to its population? If they want to roast each other, go right ahead. The U.S. has a declining economy with people in soup lines, there's bigger fish to fry at home. Also, going by news reports, it seems those fighting against Assad are Al-Qaida affiliated militants, do we really want those terrorists in power? Just doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

[IronWing]

It was rather inauspicious of Obama to pose with the war criminal George Bush on the day of this announcement.

 

[nehalem256]

Can someone explain to me why blowing people up with explosives is fine, but killing them with Sarin is suppose to make me upset?

 

[Matt1970]

Can someone explain to me why blowing people up with explosives is fine, but killing them with Sarin is suppose to make me upset?

It's probably a very painful death.

 

[Screech]

Also, going by news reports, it seems those fighting against Assad are Al-Qaida affiliated militants, do we really want those terrorists in power? Just doesn't make sense to me at all.

Since the start of this conflict I've been of the opinion that we have a situation where two groups of people who generally would be strategic opponents of the US are killing each other........why spend money and blood of our own to stop it?

Granted, it's shitty when civilians die, but I really doubt a lot would improve in that regard if we got involved anyway.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's probably a very painful death.

Also probably because it is relatively ineffective against military targets, particularly modern armies with protective gear, and is instead most effective against densely populated civilian areas. It's basically a terror weapon.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It was rather inauspicious of Obama to pose with the war criminal George Bush on the day of this announcement.

Well either Obama believes that George Bush isn't a war criminal or maybe Obama wants to join the club.

"Hope and Change" and all that bullshit SUCKA!!

Oh and we shouldn't be setting foot in Syria. This isn't our fight anyways and the devils fighting each other (the one we know Assad, and the others we sort of know about namely the Islamic Extremists) are best left alone to kill each other off.

 

[Doppel]

It was a tactical use.

And/or he doesn't take Obama's threat seriously. Would Obama's response to Benghazi ("Oh well, fvck it. I'm going to Vegas") or Iran's put down of protesters etc., or anything for that matter, inspire fear of reprisal? I don't think so.

Even if Obama were dead serious, I have to wonder what the heck he can actually do that is of material significance.

Fern

He takes it seriously. See: Libya.

I doubt most people are if they are gassed to death or blown up. It is a fairly arbitrary difference really.

 

[nehalem256]

Also probably because it is relatively ineffective against military targets, particularly modern armies with protective gear, and is instead most effective against densely populated civilian areas. It's basically a terror weapon.

But isn't Syria fighting rebels and not a "modern army with protective gear"?

 

[TechBoyJK]

to test the worlds reaction. nothing is going to happen so he will do it again, small scale to keep the heat off from the UN and also scare the living shit out of the rebels.

It's very similar to NK's shelling of that island and sinking the boat. Bad enough to piss people off, not bad enough to start a war over. It's a demonstration of power that proves some degree of willingness to do 'X' activity without risking a response.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Assad is using Saddam's chemical weapons! WAR WAR WAR!



How about we just let those people in that part of the world the fuck alone and deal with our own problems.

We have left them alone previously.

They (ME and world) insist on visiting us with their problems.

 

[Nintendesert]

We have left them alone previously.

They (ME and world) insist on visiting us with their problems.

When? When did we leave them alone? When they were all subjugated under the crown I suppose.

 

[nextJin]

When? When did we leave them alone? When they were all subjugated under the crown I suppose.

Beats the hell out of me, we have been involved in this type of shit since the 50's. We never left Iran alone, or Iraq and Afghanistan for that matter.