Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Possible Chemical Weapons Use In Syria

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the one-of-the-not-OK-ways-to-murder-people dept.

The Military 164

Hugh Pickens writes "Mike Hoffman reports that Syria's Assad regime has accused the rebels of launching a chemical weapons attack in Aleppo that killed 25 people — an accusation the rebel fighters have strongly rebuked. A Reuters photographer said victims he had visited in Aleppo hospitals were suffering breathing problems and that people had said they could smell chlorine after the attack. The Russian foreign ministry says it has enough information to confirm the rebels launched a chemical attack while U.S. government leaders say they have not found any evidence of a chemical attack. White House spokesman Jay Carney says the accusations made by Assad could be an attempt to cover up his own potential attacks. 'We've seen reports from the Assad regime alleging that the opposition has been responsible for use. Let me just say that we have no reason to believe these allegations represent anything more than the regime's continued attempts to discredit the legitimate opposition and distract from its own atrocities committed against the Syrian people,' said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. 'We don't have any evidence to substantiate the regime's charge that the opposition even has CW (chemical weapons) capability.' President Obama has said the 'red line' to which the U.S. would send forces to Syria would be the use of chemical weapons. However, it was assumed the Assad regime would be the ones using their chemical weapons stockpile, not the rebels."

cancel ×

164 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally (4, Funny)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222449)

Finally there is a reason to monetize this otherwise wasted conflict. Don't let their suffering be in vain!

Re:Finally (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222599)

Syria does have oil [wikipedia.org] . That's all I need to hear. USA, Semper Fi, Give em Hell, and all that.

Re:Finally (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222707)

I know right? We got so much oil from Iraq and Afghanistan that gas is now back below $2 / gal and the world is a better place. Mission accomplished. Oh wait, you mean we didn't go for the oil?

Re:Finally (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222881)

If you want Oil less than $2.00 a gallon, you need to send the marines in to secure the World headquarters of each oil company and take the executives to Gitmo for interrogation.

Re:Finally (2)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223085)

If you want oil less than $2 a gallon, then you're going to need a lot of cheap oil. Nabbing all the oil executives (and the heads of state of the bigger OPEC countries, since they're really the ones setting prices) just gets you a bunch of warm bodies.

Re:Finally (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223601)

Shell can already gassify natural gas into petroleum for $25/barrel in on of its Persian Gulf plants - the price of crude is only one input into the price of gasoline at the pump, and unfortunately, it hasn't been primary since the USG invaded the Middle East.

Re:Finally (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223861)

Then what are they doing to their profits ?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell

2012 Shell revenue: $470 Billion
2012 Shell profit: $24.7 Billion
2011 Shell revenue: $380 Billion
2011 Shell profit: $19 Billion

Suppose we nationalise them, and assuming that doesn't create any problems, oil price can go down by a little under 5% (and that's ignoring that most of their profits don't actually come from selling oil to the pump). This 5% profit, by the way, for 2012 is a record high for oil companies, where 1% is a more usual figure, although most oil companies did well the last 2 years.

Yes some profits are added to the pump price, but nowhere near what these guys want you to believe.

Re:Finally (1)

cusco (717999) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224233)

Yes, some profits are unable to be hidden and so have to be reported, but the real profits are nowhere near what these guys want you to believe, either.

Re:Finally (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224003)

Nabbing all the oil executives (and the heads of state of the bigger OPEC countries, since they're really the ones setting prices) just gets you a bunch of warm bodies.

But couldn't we render /them/ down for their natural oils?

There seem to be a lot of CEOs around these days; certainly enough to spare. Are there enough to get oil down to $2/gallon?

It wouldn't even require foreign adventures; the country seems to have a glut of its own CEOs that are just begging to be tapped.

I feel this may be an hypothesis worth following up on with practical experimentation.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224181)

I know, right? It will take those bodies thousands of years to turn into usable oil.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223733)

This would work for about a month or two, at which point the financial/physical realities (i.e. that the oil companies need profits to fund the next round of exploration and infrastructure for production) would cause either the production to go into decline or the prices to go up on the world markets, or both. While there might be some element of speculation and collusion going on, you can't blame the price on that alone. Companies don't start drilling $100 million wells in deep water environments if they still have $2/barrel oil to produce and sell from somewhere else.

Re:Finally (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223887)

So you're basically a fascist.

Re:Finally (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224109)

Oil costs just about the same today, as it did in 1950's.

http://pricedingold.com/crude-oil/ [pricedingold.com]

True - you pay more coins for the same amount of oil, today. But the problem isn't that the oil is more expensive. The problem is that the dollar is worth less. Almost worthless, in fact.

There will be a squad of self-appointed economics experts along soon, to remind us why the gold standard sucks. Of course, economics experts allowed the housing bubble and the subsequent crash, so take their explanations with a few grains of salt. Or a few shots of tequila and salt - whatever floats your boat.

Re:Finally (1)

cusco (717999) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224279)

Of course, economics experts will very quickly be able to show you why a gold bubble and subsequent crash would suck as well, and if you've now based your entire currency on the crashing commodity it's going to hurt. A lot. A whole lot more than the housing crash or the dot-bomb crash did. Really, really bad idea. Unfortunately most of the competing ideas are only slightly better.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224205)

That's just plain stupid, and shows your extreme ignorance regarding the oil industry and market. OIl companies are wealthy because they are riding the wave of demand for their product, but they cannot manipulate the price to any great extent.

Oil is a global commodity and the market price for oil is mostly controlled at a macro level, far beyond the oil companies. The Middle Eastern oil producing countries as well as those in South America that form OPEC are the ones that really have influence on market price; the big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Chevron are a pittance in their influence on the market for oil compared to say Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.

Re:Finally (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223033)

Why would you want low oil prices? You want high oil prices, and to own the wells. And, by 'you', I mean the friends of the ruling party who get the contracts for rebuilding Iraq...

Re:Finally (2)

megamerican (1073936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223147)

You really think that it is in the best interest of these corporations to give us cheap gasoline? No, their interest is in control and it is not in their interest when a leader floods the world with cheap oil.

As for these chemical weapons. It doesn't make sense for Assad to use since many western nations have said they'd intervene. In fact, there were e-mails hacked from a British defense company back in January [cyberwarnews.info] , which talked about staging just such an attack.

Re:Finally (2)

geekymachoman (1261484) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224111)

> I know right? We got so much oil from Iraq and Afghanistan that gas is now back below $2 / gal and the world is a better place.

Not only that, but the world is having more opium/heroin as well. The taliban seem to be enjoying capitalism.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Afghanistan_opium_poppy_cultivation_1994-2007b.PNG [wikimedia.org]

Re:Finally (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222711)

While I was farting out the cum that your tiny cock let loose into my rancid asshole, a piece of feces flew out. What say you?

Re:Finally (4, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222799)

I say I'm beginning to support the NSA's proposal to collect every post each person makes on Internet message boards, then hand-deliver the assembled quotations, in coffee table book format, to anyone said person later wishes to marry.

Re:Finally (2)

c (8461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223191)

You realize that the probable result is that only the absolute dumbest couples on the planet would likely get married and have children, right?

Re:Finally (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223271)

Isn't that what currently happens anyway?

Re:Finally (1)

c (8461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223695)

Mostly, but every once in a while smart people get paid. Still, the trends aren't looking good...

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224417)

True, look at yourself as the result of that.

Re:Finally (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223407)

Well, I'm an incurable optimist when it comes to things like this.

For instance, I think we could end most wars relatively easily just by getting the two sides to sit down in the same room together, because then we'd only have to pick off the survivors.

Re:Finally (4, Funny)

c (8461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223647)

I guess I'm a nerd, because I'd just leave the door locked and call it "Schrodinger's peace negotiations".

Re:Finally (1)

simplypeachy (706253) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223309)

I love you, my dearest. Will you marry me?

Re:Finally (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223303)

The elephant in the room is what isn't being mentioned.

Why has nobody of an officious status mentioned that this could be a false flag attack to muster international sentiments in favor of Syria, in opposition to the rebels? I'm sure Syrian government officials would like nothing more at this point than to have the US and UN coalition allies storm in and settle things for them. What surer way to do so than have their opponents use an 'illegal weapon', hopefully killing innocents?

I suspect nobody's mentioned it because drawing light to a possible false flag would put question into peoples' minds about the possibility of false flags being used elsewhere as well.

Re:Finally (4, Insightful)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223753)

Why has nobody of an officious status mentioned that this could be a false flag attack to muster international sentiments in favor of Syria, in opposition to the rebels?

Because it's become clear that the rebels in Syria (as in most of the Arab Spring) are no more trustworthy than the Assad government, and just as willing to engage in atrocities. When you can't trust either side, you basically end up just ignoring both. It's pretty much impossible to tell the truth from the bullshit in Syria.

Re:Finally (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223969)

I am not happy with that answer. That means we end up with a failed state spewing forth chaos and violence into the world. (Still trying to figure out what the right decision is.)

Re:Finally (0)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224291)

Carpet bomb? No more violence or chaos spewing forth from that part of the world...

Re:Finally (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224427)

Whether you're happy with it or not is irrelevant. It's a true answer. There's a reason they're always referred to as the "rebels in Syria" and not by some official name. There is no official name, because they're not organized. And unfortunately the best organized, most effective groups in the rebels are islamist, anti-western militants, generally foreign fighters of some sort, who are interested in the extreme side if middle eastern politics, namely impose Sharia and burn Israel to the ground. There is no good guys and bad guys in this fight.

Unfortunately this is true throughout a lot of the Middle East. Look what's happened in the past 5 years.

Iran - the Green movement which was lauded in Western media as a popular uprising against an oppressive regime and a "stolen election" in 2009. Unfortunately, turns out the Green movement was an extreme minority of educated urban youth, and it's difficult to claim a stolen election when the President won in a 62-33 and no evidence could be found of any voting irregularity. So the people of Iran voted back in the oppressive regime that the West didn't like.

Egypt - protests rise up over the oppressive regime of Hosni Mubarek. Mubarek responds with violence from the police force (which he controls); the military stays put. Eventually the military moves in and removes him and... sets up a military junta to take over the government. The military delays setting up elections mainly because the leading candidate is one they don't like, but he gets elected anyways. The elected candidate is: the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas and a heavy anti-Israeli, anti-Western islamist/Sharia kind of group. Since then the newly elected President has indicated that the peace treaty with Israel will need some serious reconsideration (suggesting yet another Egypt-Israeli war is in the future), he has pushed islamist policies,and at least one point attempted to gain a rule-by-decree power when the Egyptian Parliament wouldn't do what he wanted.

Libya - The Arab spring leads to protests, and Ghadafi responds with force. The west supports the rebels, mainly at Europe's instigation but the primary command and control and a good half the forces involved were American despite not wanting to get involved (thanks NATO). Ghadafi is assassinated, and suddenly we realize there is no organized resistance, their only common ground was their hatred of Ghadafi, but now they're totally disintegrating. Meanwhile our ambassador there is killed and the place is becoming more hotly contested. Meanwhile, the mercenaries Ghadafi hired (Tuareg nomads from the desert) returned to their home country (Mali) and started a rebellion there, nearly overthrowing the whole country until France sent in troops to help. This is ongoing.

The reality is that there is no group of good guys who want to overthrow the oppressive regime, if only they had the support. The good guys who were organized were all killed. The Syrian situation is just as complex; there's a reason we're not supporting the rebels. Who do you support? Who do you give weapons too? How do they not end up in the hands of militants who might use them later against Western forces? How do you keep things stable there? If Assad falls, who's there to rein in Hezbollah from attacking Israel and starting yet another invasion of Lebanon by Israel (three in the past 25 years)? If Assad falls, what's to stop the different groups of rebels from fighting each other? How do you keep that from spilling over into Jordan, which is barely maintaining control of it's own militant Palestinian population? All of those are valid questions with no answers.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224409)

Why has nobody of an officious status mentioned that this could be a false flag attack to muster international sentiments in favor of Syria, in opposition to the rebels?

Because it's become clear that the rebels in Syria (as in most of the Arab Spring) are no more trustworthy than the Assad government, and just as willing to engage in atrocities. When you can't trust either side, you basically end up just ignoring both. It's pretty much impossible to tell the truth from the bullshit in Syria.

Well said.
News misinformation is filled with political agendas, Assad regime does not seem nice, but the same the rebels. For me all the fight in the Arabic countries seem like tribes wars.

But the most important is, if anyone does not know what is going on in Syria, the answer is Iran, specifically Iran and its nuclear program, but I can be wrong.

Re:Finally (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224293)

It could well be a false flag attack, but your elephant is a small one.

If the white house thinks: "the threshold for intervention is chemical weapons" (reasonable), and tell it the world openly (this is pure madness or being criminal, choose), and there are interests in doing such intervention (and lots of people have interest in wars) then chemical attacks will occur.

Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222473)

Let us know...

Why is this news for nerds?

Re:Possible? (3, Insightful)

etash (1907284) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222491)

slashdot has always posted significant political news stories. Now, i'm not sure this is important, but could be if it was used as an excuse for a military intervention in syria by the west.

Re:Possible? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222611)

Considering that the US government and many of the people living in the US are immoral warmongers, I wouldn't be surprised.

Re:Possible? (1)

aurispector (530273) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222627)

Or the east. Oh wait, the russians are already actively supplying assad with arms.

This was reported yesterday. Once upon a time, Slashdot was a great place to pick up news early. Not any more.

Re:Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223111)

he russians are already actively supplying assad with arms.

That's because the Russians, unlike the U.S., are smart enough to realize that an asshole in charge is still much preferable to a bunch of Muslim religious fanatics in charge. The U.S., with an intelligence service that's about as intelligent as your average supermodel, still seems to think these Muslim extremists of the "Arab Spring" are freedom fighters who love the West.

Re:Possible? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223119)

Many western countries are already supplying the Syrian rebels with arms - the recent video showing rebels shooting down a Syrian forces helicopter showed them using a type of MANPAD which was not in the Syrian military's arsenal prior to the conflict, someone gave or sold it to the rebels.

Re:Possible? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223669)

Why does it have to be Western countries? The people with the most to gain from Assad falling are Turkey and Saudia Arabia, who both have substantial amounts of money and weapons. It's not always the usual demon "the West" that gets involved in these things, there are other actors in the world.

The West has been on the receiving end the problems of supplying weapons in the past; many of the weapons the Taliban used in Afghanistan were supplied in the 80's by the West to combat the Russians; suddenly they were used against us in the 2000's when we go in. I think most Western countries are really hesitant to go down that path again, and despite not being an Obama fan I doesn't seem to fit him to go down this path either. Non-weapons supplies, like food and medicine and all that, sure. But not weapons.

Re:Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222759)

It's not that interesting discuss ecerything post factum

Re:Possible? (5, Interesting)

supertrooper (2073218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222523)

Nerds like chemistry. In any case, seems like the end game is near. Whoever used the chemical weapons, the regime will be blamed and swiftly removed. What will follow is the usual chaos, fighting between factions, terrorist attacks, etc. Why do we still think that democracy is better for these countries when dictatorships obviously work better. Or maybe we just want to bring democracy whenever some regime doesn't like us. Places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are great.

Re:Possible? (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222619)

Nerds like chemistry.
In any case, seems like the end game is near. Whoever used the chemical weapons, the regime will be blamed and swiftly removed. What will follow is the usual chaos, fighting between factions, terrorist attacks, etc. Why do we still think that democracy is better for these countries when dictatorships obviously work better. Or maybe we just want to bring democracy whenever some regime doesn't like us. Places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are great.

Why do you think that people in other parts of the world don't desire freedom as Americans do?

Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.

Re:Possible? (2)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222647)

Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.

I think a good place to start is the problems that exist within our own borders. Once we got those figured out, King O and start working on policing the world.

Re:Possible? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222741)

I would agree, but then we need to stop making statements about a red line in the sand. Don't tell the world you're going to be the police and busy yourself up eating doughnuts when someone commits a crime. We shouldn't be the world police, and we should stop pretending that we are when we're not willing to follow through. All it does is build false hope and animosity.

Re:Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223707)

Some blowhard "leader" that doesn't know his ears from a golf club said that. Not me.

Re:Possible? (5, Interesting)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222755)

Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.

I think a good place to start is the problems that exist within our own borders. Once we got those figured out, King O and start working on policing the world.

Unless you want to deploy the US military on US soil to do...something, then it is also worth noting that we can solve more then one problem at a time, and have different types of resources for different tasks.

The US is currently spending 10x the next ten countries on it's military and can intervene to stop the blunt massacre of civilians and rise of a new dictatorship in Syria. If the US defunded most of it's military and put that money into say, trying to address domestic poverty, then that would be laudable too.

We might also recognize that most problems are inter-related and can't be fixed one at a time anyway, and it takes a collective effort on many fronts to make progress on any of them.

Re:Possible? (2)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222959)

Perhaps we should spend, oh, five times as much as the next ten countries and work on our 17 trillion dollars in debt. I mean, my flag flies proud on my porch and I'm happy to be an American. But what the fuck man.

Re:Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223651)

Pfft.

Spend it on science research on then the debt problem will solve itself and our society will advance as a whole.

Re:Possible? (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223717)

You could cancel the entire defense department and still be borrowing half a trillion or more a year.

Taxing 100% of the income of the rich won't do it, either. Nor will both together.

Finally, we are some 40 trillion short in unfunded liabilities. Even socking it to the middle class, which will not happen, will not save us from that one.

You see cowardly behabior by politicians who trade off power now for problems future politicians must solve.

Re:Possible? (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222989)

If we intervene and support the rebels, they will massacre the Alawates, Shiites, and Christians. All ensuring a fair election would do is accomplish this democratically. There is no good choice here.

Re:Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223053)

more than. Oh, and babies before bombs.

Re:Possible? (1)

emok (162266) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223337)

You're making a BIG assumption that sending the US military will fix the problem.

Wars are necessarily complicated and messy. No one knows what will happen after the troops are sent in.

Re:Possible? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222815)

Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.

I think a good place to start is the problems that exist within our own borders. Once we got those figured out, King O and start working on policing the world.

Kinging O would encourage him.

Re:Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222953)

Any type of government (democracy, dictatorship, communism, socialism, etc..) can have freedom for its population. Any one of these are not better or worse than another. The problem stems from the human elements that are involved.

Now, back on subject.. IF evidence of a chemical WMD attack is found.. I feel sorry for the regime there; considering that almost every single developed and undeveloped country has codoned and strictly forbade any use of NBC warfare. If such evidence is found, a UN force wouldn't compare to the armed force that would come down upon those who use it.

Not too mention, whoever was involved in it (from the grunt that fired the missile, to the top person that authorized it), if they were not KIA, and faced a tribunal for war crimes against humanity.. they would be executed. No appeals, no life-time imprisonment, no passing go.. they would go straight from the court / tribunal to the firing squad / tree / gas chamber.

Re:Possible? (2)

captbob2002 (411323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223463)

Why do you think that people in other parts of the world don't desire freedom as Americans do?

Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.

Piss the world off when the US inserts itself in these sort of conflicts, piss the world off when the US doesn't get involved. Either way it is the fault of the big, bad, USofA. I am not going to be an apologist for the many dumb things the US has done in the world over the years, but the US does not have a corner on that particular market. Not all the bad things that happen in the world are our fault.

Hell, Putin seems hell-bent on restarting the cold war to rebuild the glory of the Soviet Union, I see no need to provide him with an excuse by getting involved in a proxy war in the middle east this time instead of southeast Asia..and asking the Chinese for the money to finance it.

Re:Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224135)

Why do you think that people in other parts of the world don't desire freedom as Americans do?

Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.

They do, but America is the problem [wikipedia.org] , not the solution.

Re:Possible? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222669)

it wasn't working better.

hence the chaos that has ensued. the chaos was born from syrians - because the system was not working.

they're not great(saudi arabia and bahrain). they're waiting timebombs and quite frankly hellholes for having fun or saying your mind out loud. you want to bitch about one percenters, there it's on a whole different level.

Assad will probably label anyone who used the chems as rebels, he has to or say bye bye faster than otherwise. doesn't mean that they weren't fighting other rebels.

Re:Possible? (1)

gtall (79522) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224221)

Because Democracy is better than tyranny. Learn to think long ball instead of small ball.

Coincidence? (3, Informative)

mwasham (1208930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222483)

Britam was hacked recently and some of the emails (that they claim were fake) hinted this was in the works. http://www.infowars.com/hack-reveals-washington-approved-plan-to-stage-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/ [infowars.com]

Re:Coincidence? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222629)

See, you had me right up until I saw the infowars link. There's left and right bias in the media, and then there's the drug addled bat shit fucking crazy morons that run conspiracy web sites like infowars.

Re:Coincidence? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223421)

Hold on, I don't think that's fair.

Drugs can't adequately explain the bizarre paranoid delusions inforwars garners. Drugs can induce delusions, but they're usually not of the paranoid kind. I have every reason to believe that there's a relatively(10-25%) common mental issue that the Internet has allowed to surface and self-reinforce. Things common to all of us, like confirmation bias makes a few paranoid delusions start to seem rational to particular subcultures, and they all assure each-other of how right they are.

I'm sure there must be some academic research beginning to approach this concept in some depth, but my sociology background is weak enough that I wouldn't even know what to look for.

Re:Coincidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223895)

Calling it a conspiracy site is a bit ridiculous. Slashdot is supposedly populated with all these great intellectuals, yet they seemingly can't see that most of the "conspiracies" on the infowars site are highly documented, and all it takes is to open your eyes and look at what is going on in the world (and here in the US) and see that infowars seems to be right on the money. But never mind the evidence, just insert head in sand and repeat the mainstream media "conspiracy" meme.

Re:Coincidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223007)

lol, seems the infowars crowd is up early today.

This ones (mwasham) a Texas real estate agent no less! Rare find!

iraq (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222527)

These are the same weapons Iraq had before they were invaded.

Re:iraq (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222801)

And they will be just as easy to find. America's actions since 2001 have been... disgusting. I grew up thinking I was on the "good" side. Now I know better.

fucktard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222891)

Actually, fucktard, it's very likely to be the same chemical weapons that the iraqi terrorists used; IED on a chlorine tank. Assad is unlikely to use chlorine because it's not very effective as chemical weapons go.

WOMD again... (0)

tbien (28401) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222557)

Happy 10th anniversary! Time for a new war!

Probably getting boring just to clean up the mess of the old ones.

Re:WOMD again... (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222635)

We should finish celebrating the success of the last war to bring freedom, prosperity and democracy to Iraq first, I feel. It was a textbook example of government, intelligence services, armed forces and the media all working together towards a common goal - all funded by taxpayers who go squealing about 'civilian casualties' as soon as one of THEM gets injured.

Re:WOMD again... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222865)

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or actually trying to say that the invasion of Iraq was a "success"?

Re:WOMD again... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222921)

The invasion was a success. The cleanup has been a long waste of resources. Unfortunately, if we didn't waste those resources on the cleanup, we would've probably seen Iran invade.

Re:WOMD again... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222851)

It will take people's minds off of the black hole in America's treasury and the market which surprise, seems to have topped out and will probably work its way back again like it has been doing for the past almost 20 years [yahoo.com] or so, trading in more or less the same range. Funny, everyone on the street seems to be getting excited about the stock market again. I have a look at the calendar and think oh look, already 5 years since 2008... I give it a year or so. War would change this, send the price of oil up even more for a while, and make the 0.1% even richer. Soon we'll be seeing our first trillionaires. How much of all those freshly printed US dollars have made their way to your pocket though?

Re:WOMD again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223713)

Happy 10th anniversary! Time for a new war!

Nope, just this morning the White House said there is no evidence that either side has or has used chemical weapons. Besides, there isn't a Republican in the White House. No American President who is a Democrat has started a war since Vietnam, and it can be argued that Eisenhower stared that one, not Kennedy, since Eisenhower sent the first help to South Vietnam (training personnel).

Since then, every single Republican President except Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford has started a war. We were at war the entire time Nixon was in office so he had no reason to start one, and Ford was only in the White House a couple of years and didn't actually have time to start one.

If the Republicans win the White House in 2016, expect US combat troops on the ground in some foreign country by 2018.

How is this tech and wtf is this doing on Slashdot (2)

vivaoporto (1064484) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222559)

First: wtf is this doing on tec.slashdot.org?

Second: this red line was crossed a long time ago: Syria used chemical weapons in Homs, US state department cables reveal [dailymail.co.uk] It's just that the world won't care unless it was the scary beaded guys that did it, when Assad did it last December the world pretended it didn't happened

Third: don't pretend you care, the death toll is reaching 100.000, Assad launched everything in his arsenal from cluster bombs to SCUDs, about 1.000.000 people were displaced. Unless something spills over the Golan heights nothing will be done except strong worded letters to all parts involved

Bottom line: move along, nothing to see here

Re:How is this tech and wtf is this doing on Slash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222691)

Plus Syrians aren't people, so fuck em. They just aren't white enough.

Re:How is this tech and wtf is this doing on Slash (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222883)

wtf is this doing on tec.slashdot.org?

Page hits. Slashdot is now a corporation and very much for profit. Political stuff like this gets page hits.

Re:How is this tech and wtf is this doing on Slash (1)

Adambomb (118938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222907)

Note: it is Russia and China [wsj.com] that have everyone afraid to intervene for the most part. What we have here is a clusterfuck of the current iteration of the Great Game causing political tensions that make most nations leery to the point that everyone refuses to take any action.

This is doubly so for America as you add in the Democrats knowing damned well that no matter how justified an intervention is they will be tarred even more by Republicans claiming it was simply warmongering (see Libya).

So those in power amongst the major powers are too busy glaring at each other while thousands and thousands of Syrians die and even more are displaced. You are right about apathy being a major problem as even if it seemed ineffectual, massive protests concerning inaction in Syria would force the news outlets to at least have to mention the issue rather than continuing to sweep the problem under the rug beyond the odd "shits still crazy in Syria" headline.

Re:How is this tech and wtf is this doing on Slash (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224115)

This is doubly so for America as you add in the Democrats knowing damned well that no matter how justified an intervention is they will be tarred even more by Republicans claiming it was simply warmongering (see Libya).
Yes, that great Republican Dennis Kucinich [wikipedia.org] had constitutional objections. But that's okay we're "rushing to war" in Syrian, but since there is a Democratic president it will all turn out OK.

Re:How is this tech and wtf is this doing on Slash (1)

gtall (79522) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224359)

Well, the U.S. cared about Iraq and the echo chamber here resounded with "tut-tut, even WE know better". Personally, I think knocking over a tyrannical dictator is always a good think in the long run. In the short run, things get messy.

On a different note, the Arabs and Persians are killing each other in a civil war started in 600's when some relative of Muhammed got whacked long after the M boy scarpered to that Great Food Bowl in the Sky claiming (gee, who'd have guessed) "no prophet will arise after me". Nothing the U.S. or Europe can do will stop that civil war because both sides believe political power spews out of a religious book and not from the people for the people's sake. And that controversy is as old as the golden age of Greece. Even Israel is football in their civil war, both sides believe if they are the ones to solve Hilter's Jewish Problem, not only will they get 71 virgins who don't know what small means, they'll get to vanquish the other side.

'Rebels' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222587)

Come on guys, these aren't rebels - this is an outsourced invasion on behalf of the US, the UK and Israel at the very least. CNN was caught faking news from the war zone.

If someone else did it, it'd be called terrorism.

Obama's all gas and no go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222665)

Even if it's true the most you can expect out of this administration is a strong condemnation. Words of rebuke don't mean much to our enemies (See Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for historical examples). Like it or not force is sometimes necessary. I'd rather not go off and fight Syria's war to be perfectly honest, but when we say that's what we're going to do then we ought to follow through. Otherwise we lose all credibility.

Re:Obama's all gas and no go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222923)

What credibility?

Your country lost the last of that around a decade ago.

Zero credibility (1, Insightful)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222703)

>However, it was assumed the Assad regime would be the ones using their chemical weapons stockpile, not the rebels."

Come on... at this point, Assad's regime has zero credibility. Just like Putin's oligarchy. Both of these regimes are just dictators clinching to their power. Who gives a damn about their opinion.

Re:Zero credibility (4, Insightful)

c (8461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223139)

Come on... at this point, Assad's regime has zero credibility. Just like Putin's oligarchy.

I find it convenient to just assume that both sides are lying sacks of shit. This is true whether it be international politics or a bunfight at the local schoolboard level.

I'm rarely wrong, or disappointed, although sometimes I'll admit to being surprised about the kinds of things people are able to say with a straight face.

Two words (1)

MrSavage (2127458) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222713)

Pallywood production.

Simpsons (1)

tirefire (724526) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222813)

Oblig. Homer Simpson quote: "And we can't watch FOX because they have those chemical weapons plants in Syria..."

Being played again (1)

yt8znu35 (1202731) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222977)

"The Russian foreign ministry has said it has enough information to confirm the rebels launched the chemical attack." It must be true, then.

Those who are buying this should go look up this word: Iraq.

Re:Being played again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223773)

Given that the rebels have a standard tactic of murdering the local Christians, taking photos of their bodies, and claiming they were Muslims made martyrs by the Assad regime, I would judge the Assad regime and Pravda to be more reliable / less unreliable sources than the rebels. Incidentally, that is the same tactic used by the Bosniaks in Yugoslavia and the Palestinians in Israel. There's a good reason for that; they're the same damned terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood.

To the people saying that the rebels cannot possibly have a chemical weapon, read the fucking news. The rebels have overrun several of Assad's army bases. They could have acquired mustard shells and fired them without knowing what they had.

Some analysis: Assad's forces control southwest Aleppo while the Muslim Brotherhood controls the north and east of the city. Victims of the chemical attack were taken to the al-Rajaa hospital and the hospital at the University of Aleppo. Both are located in the southwest of the city. The victims were therefore Assad's people. It is therefore likely to have been a rebel attack.

Syrian maskirovka (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223045)

In all likelihood, this is a maskirovka on the part of al-Assad's regime. There is clearly both a domestic and international motivation behind this: first of all, regime supporters will believe without question that it was undertaken by the rebels, which would in turn only harden even further their support-perhaps this was even an attempt to stem the flow of desertions, as supposedly within the past 2 weeksa brigadier general and several soldiers have defected to the opposition-while discrediting and demonizing the rebels. Internationally, this claim gives them percieved legitimacy for more open use of chemical weapons in a "retaliatory" response. They were probavbly also well aware that Russia would support them, and counter any claim made by the US, UK, and other pro-opposition states. Ultimately, they may be hoping to force unilateral action by the US: as long as al-Assad has Russia in his camp, he has de facto veto power in the UN Security Council. I think this is al-Assad's trump card: he is hoping the US is afraid to get embroiled in another Middle East war, and is bettig that he can keep himself from turning into another Gaddhafi.

Re:Syrian maskirovka (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224219)

In all likelihood, this is what the rebels would like us all to think. It would not be the first time in this conflict that rebel-on-rebel violence has been blamed on government forces. After all, there is more than one rebel faction, despite American efforts to get the rebels to pull together.

what's wrong with patriots using CW? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223177)

what wrong with dousing the power and money grubbing scum running one's country into the ground with corrosive acrid poisons? Hmmmm, I know a place that needs that worse than Syria.......

Re:what's wrong with patriots using CW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223501)

a hurricane did not even slow down Wall Street, you think some acid is going to do anything? Hell, it is what they use for blood.

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

wtf? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223275)

an accusation the rebel fighters have strongly rebuked.

They gave the accusation a telling-off?

You probably meant refuted, dumbfuck.

Could have been a simple accident (4, Interesting)

jafiwam (310805) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223655)

Only 25 people. Chlorine, used for a wide variety of civilian and industry purposes, all legit and reasonable uses.

Guys trusting in allah to let their bullets find their targets are very likely to hit and puncture a lot of stuff that could leak.

That equals ho hum big deal, someone hit a tank of something, or some refrigeration unit, or whatever.

Wake me up when it's several hundred people and there's evidence it was a military deployment of some kind not just hearsay from two sides who are both obviously lying through their teeth about everything and anything.

Re:Could have been a simple accident (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223867)

There was actually two similar attack yesterday, one in rebel-held territory outside of Damascus, another in regime territory, west of Aleppo.
Here's a good link about what we know so far : http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/3/20/syria-special-assessing-tuesdays-chemical-weapons-attacksand.html [enduringamerica.com]

Fake video of gas attack aftermath in hospital? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223853)

We might not have seen the same video, but the one i saw on Belgian cablenews shows a building littered with gasping victims and their family, and a doctor wearing an actual mouth thing, explaining that there was a gas or chemical attack. Whats weird? That actor/doctor with its paper mouth thing (in that context, why wear it except to avoid recognition?), and the fact that its silent and peacefull. No visible stress, no screaming, nobody in view of the camera with a mission other than to look sad. It watches like your average soap opera, dramatic monologue and everything except for the background music.

Propaganda sure goes both ways.
I do hope they get rid of the tyrans.

wrong category soulskill (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223983)

tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/20/0256259/possible-chemical-weapons-use-in-syria
tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/20/0256259/
tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/20/
tech.slashdot.org/story/
tech.slashdot.org/
tech.
tech

Re:wrong category soulskill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224285)

Like it really ruined your entire day.

Give it a break man, I'd rather find news like this on a site that wasn't full of celebrity BS as all other news sources are these days. ..Unless someone successfully installs linux in Kim Kardashian's ass.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>