Chemical weapons watchdog says sarin used in April attack in Syria

[webfact]

Chemical weapons watchdog says sarin used in April attack in Syria

By Anthony Deutsch

 

Men ride a motorbike past a hazard sign at a site hit by an airstrike on Tuesday in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in rebel-held Idlib, Syria April 5, 2017. The hazard sign reads, "Danger, unexploded ammunition". REUTERS/Ammar Abdullah

 

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The world's chemical weapons watchdog said the banned nerve agent sarin was used in an attack in northern Syria in April that killed dozens of people, a report from a fact-finding team seen by Reuters on Thursday showed.

 

The report was circulated to members of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, but was not made public.

 

The attack on April 4 in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in northern Idlib province was the most deadly in Syria's civil war in more than three years. It prompted a U.S. missile strike against a Syrian air base which Washington said was used to launch the strike.

 

After interviewing witnesses and examining samples, a fact- finding mission (FFM) of the OPCW concluded that "a large number of people, some of whom died, were exposed to sarin or a sarin-like substance.

 

"It is the conclusion of the FFM that such a release can only be determined as the use of sarin, as a chemical weapon," a summary of the report said.

 

"Now that we know the undeniable truth, we look forward to an independent investigation to confirm exactly who was responsible for these brutal attacks so we can find justice for the victims," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said in a statement on Thursday.

 

A joint United Nations and OPCW investigation, known as the JIM, can now look at the incident to determine who is to blame, she said.

 

The JIM has found Syrian government forces were responsible for three chlorine gas attacks in 2014 and 2015 and that Islamic State militants used mustard gas.

 

Western intelligence agencies had also blamed the government of Bashar al-Assad for the April chemical attack. Syrian officials have repeatedly denied using banned toxins in the conflict.

 

The mission was unable to visit the site itself due to security concerns and will not attempt to get there, the head of the OPCW was said to have decided.

 

Syria joined the chemicals weapons convention in 2013 under a Russian-U.S. agreement, averting military intervention under then U.S. President Barack Obama.

 

The United States said on Wednesday the Syrian government appeared to have heeded a warning this week from Washington not to carry out a chemical weapons attack.

 

Russia, the Syrian government's main backer in the civil war, warned it would respond proportionately if the United States took pre-emptive measures against Syrian forces after Washington said on Monday it appeared the Syrian military was preparing to conduct a chemical weapons attack.

 

(Additional reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-30

[Stargeezr]

I hope that some day the people who have done these attacks are found out and face the war crimes they deserve. If Assad is one of them, I hope he faces a public hanging.

Geezer

[Thorgal]

1 hour ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

I hope that some day the people who have done these attacks are found out and face the war crimes they deserve. If Assad is one of them, I hope he faces a public hanging.
Geezer

 

Well, if Assad is not using chemical warfare, than at least we should believe that he's planning to use it...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

[YetAnother]

15 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Well, if Assad is not using chemical warfare, than at least we should believe that he's planning to use it...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

true; am surprised these agents have not been/are not being used more

[retarius]

Seems to me that chemical weapons are a very inefficient way if killing people, bombs, missiles and bullet are much more effective. Whatever the means the result is the same for the affected person death and it is nonsense to say that killing in one manner is illegal (eg gas, white phosporous or cluster bombs) while saying that to die in a missile attack is A-OK.

 

We supposedly have a similar reaction to beheading.....why on earth os beheading a worse way to go than a firing squad or electric chair?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, retarius said:

Seems to me that chemical weapons are a very inefficient way if killing people, bombs, missiles and bullet are much more effective. Whatever the means the result is the same for the affected person death and it is nonsense to say that killing in one manner is illegal (eg gas, white phosporous or cluster bombs) while saying that to die in a missile attack is A-OK.

 

We supposedly have a similar reaction to beheading.....why on earth os beheading a worse way to go than a firing squad or electric chair?

 

If delivered "properly" they are actually very efficient. Luckily, that's not all too easy to accomplish. They do, however, remain a very efficient means to scare the opposition. And to forestall arguments that it doesn't matter how one dies, it actually does. As deaths go, this isn't most-wanted one.

 

With regard to legalities, your "expert" opinion notwithstanding, the main element here seems to be that such means are indiscriminate. Same goes for use of cluster bombs and unguided munitions in certain environments/situations. It can be argued that such attempts to "legalize" conduct under warfare conditions is off mark, futile or promotes war. But such points would need to be more accurately put forward, and alternatives would have to be considered.

 

I don't know that the beheading itself is the issue or its public communication. If they weren't publicly broadcast, the responses may have been different.