From the BBC:
US Secretary of State John Kerry has accused Syrian government forces of killing 1,429 people in a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week.
A number far higher than any other sources have claimed.
In his speech, SOS Kerry said:
We saw rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds, the white linen unstained by a single drop of blood.
Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side by side, sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad’s gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate.
Perhaps Mr. Kerry will provide the rest of us with that photo of “rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds” victims of an Assad regime chemical attack that he saw. Or perhaps he went with a photo that also made its way to being published by the BBC and tasked a staffer to count the bodies in it. No link to that BBC photo because they’ve taken it down. Just one of those “oops, sorry.”
But it can still be seen at The Telegraph. It’s not a 2013 photo but from 2003. Not Syria. Iraq.
What’s next? Kerry holding up a vial of deadly chemicals?
Here’s where Kerry got the reference.
“A preliminary US government assessment…” From multiple (but unidentified) sources.
Nothing odd that the number is a multiple of what’s been reported elsewhere.
Non-responsive to Kerry’s claim of what he saw.
You might also question the chain of custody of the hair and tissue samples cited as proof too. None of this is helping; we really need to wait for the UN laboratory work. As for the images, knock yourself out.
That’s from the Syrian Revolution General Commission. IOW, the rebels. Not exactly an independent and objective source. And yet their report only cites 646 deaths.
Have you looked at the pictures of the mangled and bloody bodies of the victims of our bombs? Far more horrifying to look at than the photo from your link.
Marie, not arguing the polemics. There are dozens of videos there. I’m paying you the compliment of assuming you are not suggesting they were all faked as part of some conspiracy. And I’m actually agreeing with you that the alleged casualty statistics and even the claimed forensics on the hair and tissue samples carry little or no evidential weight at this point. And that these assertions weaken, sadly, the administration’s case.
I am saying we need to wait the three weeks for the UN laboratory analysis which is what, I assume, you support.
Not disputing that a chemical agent was released in one or more locations in Syria. Questioning the fatality and injury figures being used by the US to gin up support for attacking Syria before the chemical agent is identified and how and by whom it was released.
Also this high-horse the US has gotten on about CW given that we didn’t even ratify the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of CW until the 1970s.
Yet ratify it we did; in its current incarnation along with one hundred and eighty-nine other states.
Fifty years later. After we fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo, nuked Japan, and dropped napalm and agent orange on Vietnam. My, aren’t we special.
Where are we on land-mines?
However, the Geneva Protocol and its wide acceptance is curious. Possibly more an artifact of a time before Guernica and the mass production of chemicals than CW being particularly horrific weapons.
Tabun, sarin and soman weren’t developed until later, post-Guernica; these constitute a poor dictator’s neutron bomb. It is worth upholding these treaties and prosecuting their violation.
So a rich dictator’s WMDs are OK?
Great, Shaun.
So glad to hear it.
WTFU.
AG
Oh, Arthur you stole my thunder. I’ve been slowly thinking through the whole issue of CW and how curious it is that they hold such a horrendous place in our minds. And the fact that they are relatively cheap plays into why they were banned.
Heh, very funny. And a good point. Though I certainly didn’t make that distinction.
I am not trying to be funny here, Shaun. The entire structure of U.S. foreign policy is built on the idea that smaller, less wealthy countries can…and must… be dominated by a combination of military force (Overt and covert both. Whatever works.) and/or
bribery…err, ahhhh…”investment.” Larger/wealthier countries are more trustworthy because:A-They have more to lose.
B-Many of them are in on the winning side of the fix.
and
C-Once a country becomes a real nuclear power, mutually assured destruction enters into the equation.
Obama’s present thing with Syria is meant to bring the ” mutually assured destruction” concept right to the edge of this particular table.
But Great Britain gummed up the works like a subordinate but still powerful gangster that suddenly refuses to go in on the disciplinary dirty work.
And he waits until the
Five FamiliesCongress can gather.Rethink time.
Can he?
Will he?
Should he?
Stay tuned.
There are other families involved now. Bet on that as well. If of course you can find a straight bookie who’ll take the bet.
I wonder what Las Vegas thinks.
Watch.
AG
What Arthur said. Our little brains hold some serious misconceptions about CW that have become very useful to wealthy warmongering states.
Very nice, I make an effort to engage politely with you and on point and so now I’m stupid and advocating for stupidity. I’ve had about enough of this Marie.
“Our little brains” includes me; so, not sure why you take personal offense at a reminder that we’re all human.
As for an honest discussion or debate, it’s difficult within the narrow parameters of what you’ve decided is relevant, and that seems to be guided by your position that any evidence of a CW release in an unfriendly country is a causis belli for US military action. I disagree. All weapons and wars are horrendous. We facilitate too many of them and never seem to acknowledge our responsibility for those deaths and that destruction.
I have never said it is a casus belli. Never. It might come to that, to be sure but that is not my argument. And it is not a matter requiring haste, except insofar as another incident is deterred.
I have argued for a ‘response,’ and I reckon there better be one of some kind sooner or later, but strong diplomacy is probably more effective than unilateral military action. That’s why I mentioned Abyssinia to howls of derision.
What I have been arguing is as follows; that this actually happened in the first place and wasn’t a moon-landing fake; that the evidence so strongly suggested that it originated with the regime as to be persuasive in the absence of anything more than transparent conspiracy theories; that the regime has a motive; that a Western intelligence agency or the Saudis would be insane to provide nerve agents to the rebels or do this themselves; that between the resources of the Internet and our own critical thinking 90% of the bollocks on the subject can be safely dismissed; that our reasonable expectation of international stability is still entirely founded on a notion of “collective security;” that this includes the UN and the chemical weapons ban which remains a valuable and arguably essential prohibition which it is in the self-interest of all citizens to consider making some sacrifice to preserve… Need I go on?
And you may have noticed that I have had a constant headwind on each and every one of these points from the beginning, not to mention stonewalling and misdirection, and have been on the receiving end of not a little bit of insulting assumptions, smarmy catharsis and outright accusations which often have nothing to do with anything I’ve argued. Just another typically day on the blogs.
Frankly I don’t think many bother to do more than skim the comments of others for a few key words before launching into their favourite polemic rant du jour. Not to mention the outright trolling.
So I’m sorry for misinterpreting your comment, Marie, but I promise you this; when I respond to your comments I have always read them in their entirety and I click through and often read your links.
Fair enough.
However, my logic informs me that the rebels have a far greater incentive to use CW than the Assad regime. Not saying that either actually used a chemical weapon on purpose but either could. We do know that CW were found in rebel hands in May. And Turkey would not have any obvious reason for manufacturing this story given its support for the ousting of Assad. In May Carla Ponti said that evidence pointed to rebels having used CW. More credible evidence than an alleged intercepted phone call by Israeli intelligence.
Yeah well my logic has the opposite conclusion as to motive but I’m not angry about it.
As for that report from Turkey, I would be happy to discuss that in more detail. I spent a fair bit of time on it when it first happened and there are a few things about that story which are definitely ‘odd.’ Not saying it is or is not credible, just that there are a couple of versions so you need to pick one.
For one thing, almost half of those arrested were released the same day; can you imagine? And the rest were immediately identified as al-Nusra, a known al-Qaeda affiliate. With 2kg of sarin? How is it the black helicopters didn’t descend and whisk them off to rendition without a whisper?
It just so happened I had been reading a lot of Turkish press around that time for other reasons and the tendency for conspiracy theories in their ‘mainstream’ media is outside of Western norms, by some margin. The mayor and the governor disagreed if it was a false report or not; there was a ‘correction’ the next day. And it was reported that it was a plot against the USAF base at Incirlik. But the Western media barely gave it a mention.
All this two weeks after the bombings in Reynahli with all the conflicting skulduggery swirling around that incident? It is not a story you can just cite at face value without digging a little deeper and then it just seems, as I said, ‘odd.’
Okay. But let’s not pretend that US official stories haven’t seemed odd and haven’t changed when questioned.
There is plenty to work with, not least of which in the Syria chemical weapons incident itself.
I was actually asking what you thought about the Turkish sarin report, not trying to convince you of one side of the story or another. It really deserves a second look; but for legitimate journalists to link to it without some slight disclaimer betrays either a vested interest of a lack of understanding of the Turkish media.
Oh sorry. Meant my “okay” to indicate that I would move that report into my category of “noted but don’t rely on it.” First drafts of history are often highly unreliable. Read something the other day about current fieldwork to confirm the war deaths in Kosovo. So far the investigators are coming up far short of what was claimed over a decade ago.
I take her at her word that she intended nothing untoward with that remark. Oddly enough, it seemed similar – in a sense – to something I’ve said about the human species for a long time now: we are often simultaneously too smart and too stupid for our own good. We are remarkably creative, yet have a damn difficult time with thinking through long-term consequences and with synthesizing the large amounts of information necessary for effective critical thinking. Our failures along those lines, as a species, have come way too close to the brink of irrevocable destruction for my comfort.
As an aside, yes it would be good to see what the UN inspectors ultimately have to say. Yes, if there is evidence that our government considers critical to making its case, it would be wise to spill it already, rather than leave skeptics and true believers alike in the proverbial dark. And yes, given that the region is a tinderbox, and given that much of what we call “civilization” depends upon the resources produced by that region, it would be wise to err on the side of caution, especially given our own government’s rather checkered history with its own weapons of mass destruction and its equally checkered history (to put it very politely) with overthrowing regimes merely to have them replaced with far worse for their respective citizens.
Thanks. I’ve mentioned several times that I think it would be prudent to wait the three weeks or so for the UN results.
I’ve definitely noticed your patiently making that point many a time. FWIW.
Also In Rush to Strike Syria, US Tried to Derail UN Probe
That’s not a search for truth. It echoes what Bush/Cheney were pulling back in 2002-03. Shocking to me to see how well another round of war propaganda is working in this country.
Yeah, that’s pretty clumsy. But that specific article confounds many other details of the UN investigation reported elsewhere in ways that seem either sloppy or intentionally sensationalistic; which seems a pretty popular pastime among some ‘free-lance’ journalists lately.
And it will be three weeks not “several days” to complete the analysis and laboratory work.
Who are you dismissing as the “free-lance” journalist? The one at the WSJ that reported on the call to Ban to suspend the UN inspection?
And it’s the “free-lance” journalists that trade in sensationalist and sloppy reporting and not the MSM? Guess I should have ignored all those disreputable free-lancers over the past decade and joined the crowd that got all the big issues wrong.
I was referring to the Gareth Porter from your link, obviously. And for the reasons I mentioned. But you seem a bit worked up about it so just forget it.
Where Did Kerry Get That 1,429 Death Count?
He pulled it out of his ass, that’s where.
Lieutenant Kerry, reporting for duty.
Once again.
Always remember his part in the 2004 presidential fix.
Always remember.
This is the guy we have fronting for us on the international political/diplomatic stage?
The one who chose John-Boy Edwards as his running mate?
Sad.
AG
Or:
Where Did Kerry Get That 1,429 Death Count?
Whatever functionaries are supplying him w/talking points actually wanted it to be “1492” (You know, the year Columbus first started the whole empire thing over here.), but since Kerry must be dysnumeric…as evidenced by his absolute inability to count the votes in 2004 although he can certainly count the money possessed by his wives and recognize who has more…he transposed a couple of numbers.
So it goes in dumb politician land.
So it goes.
AG
Relative to the chemical weapons as a poor man’s neutron bomb point, the United States during the Carter administration dropped development of a neutron bomb. To my knowledge, no country has developed neutron bombs as part of their arsenals.
The fundamental reluctance seems to be moral, ironically enough for us cynics. Neutron bombs kill people and and leave hard infrastructure useable; so do chemical weapons.
In technical terms, they are counter-value weapons that lack a counterforce component. However with chemical weapons, the military must deal with cumbersome protection and post attack clean-up. That slows down military operations. And that as much as morality is why there is almost universal acceptance of the ban on chemical weapons and the neutron bomb is one of the few weapons that have been engineered but never built.
.
“… neutron bomb is one of the few weapons that have been engineered but never built.”
False! Build as a warhead (serie W-63 thru W-70) and an artillery shell (W-79), versions were in US stockpile and finally dismantled in 2003.
From your own link W-63 through W-65 were never built and were not ER weapons anyhow, W-66 was retired from service in August, 1975 only a few months after having been manufactured and removed from stockpile in 1985, W-67 was never built and not an ER weapon, W-68 and W-69 were not ER weapons, W-70 Mod 3 were retired by September, 1992 as were the W-79s.
So of the nine weapons you claim were in stockpile until 2003 at most there were two.
You were right about them being built, of course, but why exaggerate what any person could read for themselves? It demonstrates a lack of integrity which undermines your case and makes your assertions doubtful. And it insults the intelligence of the reader. You do this all the time, like the ridiculous hoax Britam Defence links you posted.
Peter Hart asks the same question. John Kerry’s Very Precise Death Toll: Where Does It Come From?