UN investigators: Syrian rebels may have used sarin - Polidicks

[url]http://www.trust.org/item/20130505220521-o3hsk[/url] [quote]U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday. "Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television. "This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.[/quote]

I think it's obviously the rebels who used chemical weapons. Assad may be crazy but he isn't stupid enough to risk outside intervention. The rebels, who are losing ground and probably wanted to cross the "red line" were probably hoping to convince the outside world to get involved on their behalf.

I wonder if the US is going to comment on this one.

This whole syrian war is so fucked up. A giant mess. With the other arab speings there was a clear rebellion group and dictator, bu here its like a mess or good and bad.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;40543890]This whole syrian war is so fucked up. A giant mess. With the other arab speings there was a clear rebellion group and dictator, bu here its like a mess or good and bad.[/QUOTE] What ? Most/All of the middle eastern rebellions and internal conflicts are pretty muddled (Save with things like Ethnic cleansing, which is fairly straightforward): and always end in a shitton of bloodshed.

I think it's pretty hard to believe any claims coming out of Syria at this point.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;40544424]What ? Most/All wars ever are pretty muddled (Save with things like Ethnic cleansing, which is fairly straightforward): and always end in a shitton of bloodshed.[/QUOTE] ftfy

If it turns out the rebels used chemicals weapons isn't it kind of justified since the Assad regime has been killing people in a mass genocide for two years?

uhh no?

[QUOTE=coldroll5;40544625]If it turns out the rebels used chemicals weapons isn't it kind of justified since the Assad regime has been killing people in a mass genocide for two years?[/QUOTE] Chemical weapons are never justified.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;40544625]If it turns out the rebels used chemicals weapons isn't it kind of justified since the Assad regime has been killing people in a mass genocide for two years?[/QUOTE] as it turns out two wrongs don't make a right, and using deadly nerve agents against your enemy wether it's a morally reprehensible enemy or not is no way to win supporters. Google sarin gas and read up on what it does to your body.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;40544663]as it turns out two wrongs don't make a right, and using deadly nerve agents against your enemy wether it's a morally reprehensible enemy or not is no way to win supporters. Google sarin gas and read up on what it does to your body.[/QUOTE] bullets do the same thing.

[QUOTE=Mudbone;40544704]bullets do the same thing.[/QUOTE] Both will kill you, but Sarin will make you suffer like nothing else matters.

Plot twist

[QUOTE=Mudbone;40544704]bullets do the same thing.[/QUOTE] Atleast bullets have the ability to kill quick, clean and humane. [editline]6th May 2013[/editline] Sarin just screws you up

[QUOTE=Petrussen;40544737]Atleast bullets have the ability to kill quick, clean and humane. [editline]6th May 2013[/editline] Sarin just screws you up[/QUOTE] Yeah maybe if you shot them in the heart or the head, shooting them in the chest or leg would be really painful, bullets aren't humane but they're justified

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;40544663]as it turns out two wrongs don't make a right, and using deadly nerve agents against your enemy wether it's a morally reprehensible enemy or not is no way to win supporters. Google sarin gas and read up on what it does to your body.[/QUOTE] I already know what it does to your body. If the rebels did do it they were desperate because alot of their people are being killed, wouldn't you do the same thing in their position if the goverment was threatening to kill you in a mass genocide?

[QUOTE=coldroll5;40544828]I already know what it does to your body. If the rebels did do it they were desperate because alot of their people are being killed, wouldn't you do the same thing in their position if the goverment was threatening to kill you in a mass genocide?[/QUOTE] This isnt good vs bad. The rebels are not just freedom fighters. There are a lot of different groups, a lot of them also funded and supported by the west. Different political streams all trying to get lucky in this.

[QUOTE=Petrussen;40544737]Atleast bullets have the ability to kill quick, clean and humane. [editline]6th May 2013[/editline] Sarin just screws you up[/QUOTE] So getting shot in the lower torso through the bowel and dying of sepsis after a week of horrible infections is humane then? ok.

I am almost sure the US will ignore this

[QUOTE=coldroll5;40544828]I already know what it does to your body. If the rebels did do it they were desperate because alot of their people are being killed, wouldn't you do the same thing in their position if the goverment was threatening to kill you in a mass genocide?[/QUOTE] except the government is not doing a mass genocide. And if thetly are to be believed, they don't condone it either. There's a probability that pro government units did stuff like that, but if they did, it is the duty of the government ti put them in front of trial, or even better to document what they did and put them in front of the international war tribunal There's a chance there will be an ad hoc iwt for Syria established anyway if this goes on for much longer. Keep in mind that far as certain weapons go, there an internatijal accord on the fact that they are never used and who does use them is in trouble. That is fairly important as far as chemical weapons go.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;40545247]except the government is not doing a mass genocide. And if thetly are to be believed, they don't condone it either. There's a probability that pro government units did stuff like that, but if they did, it is the duty of the government ti put them in front of trial, or even better to document what they did and put them in front of the international war tribunal There's a chance there will be an ad hoc iwt for Syria established anyway if this goes on for much longer.[/QUOTE] This is Assad's government we're talking about. Last time I checked, they do condone the killing of political opponents (see: 1982 and 2012 Hama massacres and the Homs offensive). There's no way in hell that any of the Syrian Army units will be punished by the government for any the atrocities they may have committed. Syria is not a democratic or a benevolent state in any way.

I tried to phrase a response to this thread for a short while, but I found a post on Reddit that does a better job at it- "Bashar al-Assad has a lot of conventional arms at his disposal and more are being ferried in from Iran on a daily basis. Chemical weapons are sloppy, they're useful in trench warfare (World War I, Iran-Iraq War) but not very useful in guerrilla warfare. He must know that using them would cause them to lose their only ally on the UNSC (Russia) and invoke the wrath of the USA which has left a long string of toppled autocrats. If Assad uses chemical weapons such as Sarin gas deliberately and systematically it will be a last ditch effort, an indication that he has nothing left to lose. If he uses chemical weapons, he loses power no matter what happens. There's no end game which results with him coming out on top, just end games with differing levels of "fuck you" to the international community and his own people. On the other hand, the "rebels" are a loosely organized bunch of politically disjoint groups united against a common enemy (I will stop short of saying that they are united in a common cause). When, or if Assad falls, there will be more factional fighting as former rebels fight to seize power. Thus, it's not beyond belief that one rebel faction would stage a false flag attack against another rebel faction in an attempt to secure international intervention if they think that an internationally assisted transition of power may be beneficial to their own interests. Opportunism at its finest."

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;40545287]This is Assad's government we're talking about. Last time I checked, they do condone the killing of political opponents (see: 1982 and 2012 Hama massacres and the Homs offensive). There's no way in hell that any of the Syrian Army units will be punished by the government for any the atrocities they may have committed. Syria is not a democratic or a benevolent state in any way.[/QUOTE] So the Allied pilots who bombed innocent germans that weren't punished imply that no western country is a democratic or benevolent state in any way? It is basically the same thing in Syria but instead of 2 countries, it is 2 parties in 1 country. Yeah, they kill innocents but you can't argue that the Allies did the same thing. Not that it is ANY less horrible but what you are saying that must happen for a democratic or benevolent state? No, not really.

I've always not trusted the rebels and this just increases those thoughts.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;40544625]If it turns out the rebels used chemicals weapons isn't it kind of justified since the Assad regime has been killing people in a mass genocide for two years?[/QUOTE] congratulations you have won the terrible logic award

I don't know whether it matters to the United States which side used the sarin. A big part of Obama's rhetoric has been that we have to stop chemical weapons from falling into the hands of dodgy groups. If the rebels used it then it seems even [I]more[/I] likely that the US would want to react

[QUOTE=Virtanen;40545053]So getting shot in the lower torso through the bowel and dying of sepsis after a week of horrible infections is humane then? ok.[/QUOTE] I'd much rather go to war and risk being shot to the gut than being sprayed by deadly chemicals that could leave me paralysed and incapacitated for the rest of my life

[QUOTE=Petrussen;40546891]I'd much rather go to war and risk being shot to the gut than being sprayed by deadly chemicals that could leave me paralysed and incapacitated for the rest of my life[/QUOTE] Bullets can do that too. [editline]6th May 2013[/editline] The ban on chemical weaponry stems from the fact that they're indiscriminate, not because of the damage they cause

At this point Assad is looking like the lesser evil in the conflict.