Jump to content

BBC: Syria civil war: UN calls emergency talks after 'gas attack'


Chief Bakes

Recommended Posts

  • Management

Syria civil war: UN calls emergency talks after 'gas attack'

Related Topics
p04z1pvg.jpg
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Media captionRescue workers said many children were among those killed or injured in the attack

The UN Security Council is to hold emergency talks after a suspected chemical attack in Syria left dozens of civilians dead and wounded.

The attack on a rebel-held town brought furious international reaction, with the US and other powers blaming the Syrian government for the deaths.

Officials in Damascus deny using any such weapons.

The attack will overshadow a conference in Brussels at which 70 donor nations will discuss aid efforts in Syria.

Delegates want to step up humanitarian access for thousands of civilians trapped by fighting.

Syria's civil war has raged for more than six years with still no political solution in sight.

Nearly five million Syrians have fled the country and more than six million are internally displaced, the UN says. More than 250,000 people have been killed.

Wednesday's emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was called by France and the UK as international outrage mounted over the suspected gas attack on Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on Tuesday.

p04z0hrm.jpg
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Media captionVictims were treated for injuries, including asphyxiation

Britain's ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, described it as "very bad news for peace in Syria".

"This is clearly a war crime and I call on the Security Council members who have previously used their vetoes to defend the indefensible to change their course," he told reporters in New York.

Footage from the scene showed civilians, many of them children, choking and foaming at the mouth.

Witnesses said clinics treating the injured were then targeted by air strikes.

UK-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the death toll at 58, including 11 children.

It was unable to say what chemical had been dropped but pro-opposition groups said it was believed to be the nerve agent Sarin.

In a statement, US President Donald Trump condemned what he called "these heinous actions" by the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson accused the Syrian government of "brutal, unabashed barbarism".

UN Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura said it was a "horrific" attack and that there should be a "clear identification of responsibilities and accountability" for it.

Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Witnesses said clinics treating the wounded were subject to air strikes

Syria has denied its forces caused the deaths and Russia, which is supporting the government, said it had not carried out any air strikes in the vicinity.

The BBC's Lyse Doucet in Brussels says the attack could prove a stumbling block at Wednesday's international conference.

The EU hopes to use the prospect of funds for reconstruction as a bargaining chip in the faltering peace talks, our correspondent says, but the latest developments will deepen the opposition of those who say now is not the time to discuss financial support for areas controlled by the Syrian government.

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights isn't an officially recognised group. It's a man in a house in London who has a few people living there who give often biased and inflammatory accounts of the events which take place and I wish media sources would be more balanced with the credibility of their sources. It has been known for considerable time to be wildly inaccurate and akin to propaganda in most circumstances and yet it appears to be the go to source for campaign groups and media alike.

Countless lives on both sides of the conflict are lost by gunfire and combat every day; innocent, young and elderly. Regardless of the method there is nothing more abhorrent, it seems somewhat odd that the UN seem to fly into panic the moment a 'alleged' chemical agent is used, yet dozens can be shot or blown up without their being a immediate call for emergency meetings. I would suggest the UN has an agenda and is foraging for public outrage to support the actions it wishes to take. Disgusting all round really.

Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, obsidian_eclipse said:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights isn't an officially recognised group. It's a man in a house in London who has a few people living there who give often biased and inflammatory accounts of the events which take place and I wish media sources would be more balanced with the credibility of their sources. It has been known for considerable time to be wildly inaccurate and akin to propaganda in most circumstances and yet it appears to be the go to source for campaign groups and media alike.

Countless lives on both sides of the conflict are lost by gunfire and combat every day; innocent, young and elderly. Regardless of the method there is nothing more abhorrent, it seems somewhat odd that the UN seem to fly into panic the moment a 'alleged' chemical agent is used, yet dozens can be shot or blown up without their being a immediate call for emergency meetings. I would suggest the UN has an agenda and is foraging for public outrage to support the actions it wishes to take. Disgusting all round really.

Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk
 

I think that it is more than an alleged chemical attack, or maybe the UN, UK, France and other nations are not reliable sources.  The attack happened and chemical weapons were used. And what ism the source. It seemed that the victims being interviewed by the worlds press were pretty certain. Perhaps the situation is worse because of lack of action by the UN on previous occasions.

War is abhorrent and civilian casualties do happen but the world has done little to resolve the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

I think that it is more than an alleged chemical attack, or maybe the UN, UK, France and other nations are not reliable sources.  The attack happened and chemical weapons were used. And what ism the source. It seemed that the victims being interviewed by the worlds press were pretty certain. Perhaps the situation is worse because of lack of action by the UN on previous occasions.

War is abhorrent and civilian casualties do happen but the world has done little to resolve the situation.

The UN is a toothless tiger and quite frankly has little output. 

Truth is it doesn't affect us as a nation so we will ignore it and hope it plays out. 

War is and will continue to be necessary every few generations, it's ok for the west to criticise  the remaining dictators, but as Iraq and Libya quite aptly proved. Some nations don't want democracy and certainly not at the speed we want them to adopt it. 

War is expensive and has long reaching effects for decades afterwards, the UK and other western countries will suffer the consequences for years now. 

Edited by funkywingnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it is more than an alleged chemical attack, or maybe the UN, UK, France and other nations are not reliable sources.  The attack happened and chemical weapons were used. And what ism the source. It seemed that the victims being interviewed by the worlds press were pretty certain. Perhaps the situation is worse because of lack of action by the UN on previous occasions.

War is abhorrent and civilian casualties do happen but the world has done little to resolve the situation.

There's also the prospect (as some sources have said) that it was a rebel munitions factory which was hit by an air strike, that it was the rebels themselves who were manufacturing sarin. Given there are multiple air sorties flown by the Syrian air force it would be odd that only 'one' of these incidents involved chemical agents.

 

Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been many so called experts that have pointed to evidence that indicates that it was from an air strike. Whatever the cause it goes to show just how barbaric and unruly the whole area is, and has been for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

There have been many so called experts that have pointed to evidence that indicates that it was from an air strike. Whatever the cause it goes to show just how barbaric and unruly the whole area is, and has been for many years.

Where is this evidence then? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, funkywingnut said:

Where is this evidence then? 

Not again, what is the evidence that it was the rebels themselves?   Watch the interviews on the various television news programs. There were two weapons experts interviewed last night on the news who stated that from the evidence available the chemical weapon could only have been delivered by air. People in the Royal Artillery would be able to tell you from the shape, size of craters and damage what type of shell,/bomb has been used, and where it came from. Now the opinion of experts interviewed on the news at may not be definitive but on a balance of probabilities it is possibly true. To say that it is the rebels themselves is highly speculative and unlikely although in the area nothing can be ruled out.  In discussion within the UN it certainly appears that the blame is being laid at the feet of Assad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

Not again, what is the evidence that it was the rebels themselves?   Watch the interviews on the various television news programs. There were two weapons experts interviewed last night on the news who stated that from the evidence available the chemical weapon could only have been delivered by air. People in the Royal Artillery would be able to tell you from the shape, size of craters and damage what type of shell,/bomb has been used, and where it came from. Now the opinion of experts interviewed on the news at may not be definitive but on a balance of probabilities it is possibly true. To say that it is the rebels themselves is highly speculative and unlikely although in the area nothing can be ruled out.  In discussion within the UN it certainly appears that the blame is being laid at the feet of Assad.

I have never made any claim so asking me to quantify it was the rebel element is a little presumptous.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are eager to ask questions and demand answers but reluctant to do so yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He makes a good point; it's not hard for the media to find self-professed "experts" and hard to judge the credibility of their evidence. Without wanting to get my tinfoil hat out I do have to wonder exactly who benefits from the use of chemical munitions here - is Assad so intent on causing terror that he will disregard the political risks of using chemical weapons, even to bomb civilians for little strategic gain? What exactly does sarin achieve that conventional bombing would not? Does it in fact play into the rebels' hands to use it particularly against civilians, and is it entirely beyond belief that certain factions may have gotten their hands on some form of chemical munitions and decided that if they were to use them during air raids by government forces Assad would almost certainly get the blame in the eyes of the international community? 

I'm not coming down on any particular side here, as there are more questions than answers, but as said above if the BBC considers some of these sources on a par with the SOHR then a pinch of salt needs to be taken. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

You are eager to ask questions and demand answers but reluctant to do so yourself.

I am eager for evidence in a tangible format, not just blindly believing someone on the internet. 

A crater or the POI of munitions means nothing alone, not that evidence of such has been provided. 

I am leaning towards @Sceptre opinion above. Assad knows all to well that use of such weapons would likely result in international condemnation and possibly military action. Both Iraq and Afgahnistan proves the point that western military forces could invade successfully and with an already fractured nation and abysmal military it wouldn't take much. 

The alternative is Assad has use these weapons to drag the west into the fight. But given the fact he has refused wester military support that's less likely. 

I truth we will never know who used the weapons, a lawless country with a broken government and horrific human rights. 

Edited by funkywingnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

People in the Royal Artillery would be able to tell you from the shape, size of craters and damage what type of shell,/bomb has been used, and where it came from

Further to my above, the idea of someone being able to tell you what made a hole in the ground just by looking at it is comical. Anyone who told you they could would be a total bluffer, all the more so as no gunner would know the first thing about Eastern Bloc-derived chemical munitions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a brighter note the US have just obliterated the airfield suspected of launching the attack.

The world must be seen to be doing something, even if its not effective, that way history cannot judge the world leaders as standing idly by.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwile North Korea, at the helm of a Maniac who people idolise and believe never uses the toilet and was born able to talk, continue fighting the ocean with suspected nuclear capable weapons off the coast Japan, thousands die in their internment camps being worked to death or blown up on landmines, fed to ravenous dogs, shot with anti aircraft guns or assassinated with chemical agents and the West waggles the naughty finger.

Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...