Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

[lemonkettaz]

The best thing anyone can do is let the Middle East get on with it without any interference.

Who can predict what escalation may come of any action we take.

I'm glad the country can afford to start another conflict though, can only be positive.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Your last point is even more naive. There is no red line. Israel have done, and no doubt will do again, used a schedule 3 chemical weapon (WP)

Do you have more information around WP's classification? I didn't think it was a restricted 'chemical weapon'?

On another note, it seems like we are making progress - no vote in parliament until AFTER the UN inspectors report. This is a good thing. It won't be good enough for the anti-side, nothing ever is, but I think it's encouraging.

 

[arknor]

geneva convention says you cant use it in civilian areas.

it didn't stop america sticking it into artillery shells along with explosives and shelling fallujah though

I believe america said they used it as a smoke screen but the videos seem to show it being use like napalm

a very nasty weapon considering water won't stop it burning through your skin

We all know what the reaction would be if any middle east country did that

 

[wildman]

Do you have more information around WP's classification? I didn't think it was a restricted 'chemical weapon'?

On another note, it seems like we are making progress - no vote in parliament until AFTER the UN inspectors report. This is a good thing. It won't be good enough for the anti-side, nothing ever is, but I think it's encouraging.

Yes, i got the schedule part wrong. It is not restricted for use on miltary only targets, but under the Geneva Convention it is illegal to use in civilian areas. This is the part where Israel got caught out as there was evidence of WP shelling in Gaza in heavy civilian populated areas.

Its where it is used that is restrcited rather then the substance itself.

While people might accept that incidental injury to military personnel caused by uses of WP is just one of those things that happen in war, they are likely to be more concerned about the use of WP directly against personnel.

6.1 Incendiary weapons
If used as part of an incendiary weapon, WP would fall within the controls of the
Incendiary Weapons Protocol,75 so for parties to the protocol, incendiary weapons
may not be used:
a. against civilians or civilian objects;
b. against military objectives within concentrations of civilians unless clearly separated from them; nor
c. against forests or other kinds of plant cover unless they are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves
military objectives; and
d. air-delivered incendiary weapons may not be used at all to attack military objectives within concentrations of civilians.76

full document here

http://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/White-Phosphorus-and-the-law-of-war.pdf

so its a bit of a grey area actually, but there are plenty of moral questions surrounding whether it should or should not fall under the CWC

 

[ubersonic]

It is not restricted for use on miltary only targets, but under the Geneva Convention it is illegal to use in civilian areas. This is the part where Israel got caught out as there was evidence of WP shelling in Gaza in heavy civilian populated areas.

IMO using a chemical weapon like WP with an un-guided delivery system should never be done even if your "aiming" for military targets (which Israel obviously were not as not even shelling can go that far off target).

 

[gettothechopper]

Do you have more information around WP's classification? I didn't think it was a restricted 'chemical weapon'?

On another note, it seems like we are making progress - no vote in parliament until AFTER the UN inspectors report. This is a good thing. It won't be good enough for the anti-side, nothing ever is, but I think it's encouraging.

I think its half peoples / medias fault for racing off before anyone clarified anything and the other other half cameron taking maybe 36 hours too long in clarifying things a bit
You could argue he turned it down based on the reaction but thats no bad thing either

Im still thinking its some general gone stupid rather than assad himself and cameron etc have seen reports confirming it but seems they will have to show us now before anything happens

 

[wildman]

IMO using a chemical weapon like WP with an un-guided delivery system should never be done even if your "aiming" for military targets (which Israel obviously were not as not even shelling can go that far off target).

I am not disagreeing with you on that. I think the loop hole is that it is used 'legitimately' as an incendiary system, but there will always be governments / military that will use it as an anti personnel weapon which is when it starts to contravene various conventions.

considering its historical use I don't understand why they simply don't reclassify it as a schedule 3 considering the damage it can do to humans.

 

[UncleRuckus]

sounding like cameron is gonna wait for the u.n. inspectors report now.

Ah yes, then the inspector will be found to have committed suicide.

 

[areksnumbr1sxylady]

For what, leading the country and making decisions? Im no supporter of Cameron but for once I admire the guy for doing something when everyone else is more afraid that their fuel will go up 2p than actually saving some lives. Those ignorants who think doing nothing when someone uses a WMD means the problem will stay in one country. The pathetics willing to turn a blind eye to murdered women and children because they live far away.

What can be achieved? Destroy the SAA command and control and certain military bases and depots and damascus will definitely fall. Most importantly send the message that there is an actual red line and people who wont let it be crossed without punishment.

your naivety is beyond me, go work with kids or something...

 

[areksnumbr1sxylady]

Ah yes, then the inspector will be found to have committed suicide.

You mean assassinated by assad`s chemical weapons?

 

[Devlish]

So he should. Iraq and Afghanistan should serve as stark reminders of jumping in before all the facts are known. Lives are at stake as is stability in the Middle East.

True, only 106,000 dead so far, whats a couple of thousand more. How can we be so blase with WMDs and dead civvies? Seems we keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Kosovo is a tried and tested model for limited intervention, no boots on the ground. There they had concentration camps, here we have chemical weapons. Its depressing how we can ignore deaths we dont see as long as theyre far far away.

 

[Devlish]

your naivety is beyond me, go work with kids or something...

Good rebuttal - oh you havent quite managed to make an argument other than some vague nonsense typical of the knee jerk troll brigade. Back to twitter and character limited responses, its more your level eh?

 

[dowie]

I think the reason America believe these actions were authorised by Assad is because they heard it for themselves. Doesn't the NSA monitor military communication?

GCHQ in that region

but yeah, point is the US/UK likely have a good idea of who was responsible for it

 

[Johnnytoxic]

I think the reason America believe these actions were authorised by Assad is because they heard it for themselves. Doesn't the NSA monitor military communication?

Why would Assad suddenly turn to chemical weapons? In what way would he benefit from it?

 

[gettothechopper]

Why would Assad suddenly turn to chemical weapons? In what way would he benefit from it?

why would such a sensible leader not stand down when faced with massive peaceful protests before things get ugly and turn into civil war ?

 

[Danthus]

On another note, it seems like we are making progress - no vote in parliament until AFTER the UN inspectors report. This is a good thing. It won't be good enough for the anti-side, nothing ever is, but I think it's encouraging.

I agree, you can't call for the intervention of inspectors only then to act without giving them enough time to report back.

 

[Devlish]

Why would Assad suddenly turn to chemical weapons? In what way would he benefit from it?

Apparently it wasn't Assad, it was his brother. The thing about the Syrian regime is that Bashar al Assad is just the figurehead, he's not in charge. Its a distribution of power amongst senior members of the Alawite clan and decision making is decentralised. In this case, *apparently*, his brother was involved in ordering the use of the chemical weps.

 

[dowie]

So he should. Iraq and Afghanistan should serve as stark reminders of jumping in before all the facts are known. Lives are at stake as is stability in the Middle East.

you've gotta be kidding - 100,000 deaths in a civil war involving multiple actors on both sides and no clear victory in sight for either side - I don't think we need to worry about western intervention causing instability given the complete cluster**** the locals have managed to create for themselves already

 

[Johnnytoxic]

why would such a sensible leader not stand down when faced with massive peaceful protests before things get ugly and turn into civil war ?

So if we had a peaceful protest down in London, we expect
Cameron to leave?

Are you for real? Syria has a population of 22 million. Maybe 100,000 against the government and are classed as rebels. The rest are still pro Assad.

 

[Fuggan]

Why would Assad suddenly turn to chemical weapons? In what way would he benefit from it?

I don't know the answer to that but I also don't believe the US would go in without evidence. Evidence that maybe they're trying to hide from the public because it was obtained via a questionable medium.