Alleged chemical attack, March 19, 2013

What would be the first confirmed chemical weapons attack of the Syrian conflict (if confirmed, and it's not the first allegation) was reported on March 19, 2013, in Khan Al-Assal, a western suburb of Aleppo. As usual, both sides in the conflict blamed each other for an attack that killed a reported 25 or 26 to perhaps 31 people, and wounded/effected 110 with acute respiratory and nerve problems.

Some evidence (mainly a widely-reported smell) suggests chlorine was involved, and one report from DEBKAfile cites chlorine, phosphorous, and a nerve gas - BZ or Agent 15 - in the cloud. In December, 2012, it was reported rebel fighters with Jabhat Al-Nusra seized a chemical plant near Aleppo that made industrial chlorine, so they could control truckloads of it. Agent 15 or BZ, or something like them, has also been spotted in Syria before, killing a few rebel fighters exposed to it in Homs on December 23.

The attack was against a disputed but government-held area, and by some credible reports, 16 of the dead were government soldiers. As usual, both sides blamed each other, and this important alleged event remains incredibly confused and confusing, suggesting we don't know what's going on yet. This hasn't stopped strenuous posturing on the world stage about a firm response, probably against the Syrian government, whatever the truth of the matter. Considering the stakes, the truth of the matter is worth more study and though than it has yet been given.

This page is a stub with a couple of sections up-front, and otherwise, as usual, being assembled on the discussion page.

Introductory Video
Produced by Syrian Girl Partisan, the video below features ample footage from the hospital of the effected and the dead to strongly suggest mass exposure to a nerve agent. Numerous good points are also made that should spur some serious questions. Many of these are the same points we are or will be discussing at this page. Nac9zdGTOOo

Who Controlled Khan Al-Assal?
This can get a bit complicated. Official sources specify the government restored order to "parts of" Khan Al-Assal in November, 2012. But in recent weeks, rebels have made gains back in, taking over the police academy. They say the March 19 strike was aimed at their position there but missed. But it happened to successfully come down right by a Syrian military target of some sort, if reports that numerous soldiers were killed are true. But most sources pass Khan Al-Assal as either government-held (a majority of sources) and thus, more likely to be hit by the other side, or call it a rebel neighborhood (rebel fighters and leaders), making it less likely or ludicrous to be a rebel attack.
 * SANA: The armed forces restored security and stability to parts of Khan al-Asal area last November.
 * SANA: "... (rebels) launched a missile at 7,30 in the morning from Kfar Dael region into Khan al-Asal area in Aleppo governorate. "The missile fell in a region populated by civilians on a 300- m distance from the post of the Syrian Arab army soldiers," the Ministry said in the letters.
 * Voice of America: Other rebel leaders told VOA in telephone interviews that it would make no sense for them to launch a rocket strike on a city they largely controlled.
 * Reuters: A rebel fighter in Khan al-Assal, ... Ahmed al-Ahmed, from the Ansar brigade in a rebel-controlled military base near Khan al-Assal (the police academy? "about 2 km from the blast") said: The missile, maybe a Scud, hit a regime area, praise God, and I'm sure that it was an accident. After, he said: A fighter jet circled a police school held by the rebels on the outskirts of Khan al-Assal and bombed the area
 * NYT: Another rebel commander, Abdul Jabbar al Okaidi, head of the rebel military council in Aleppo, said in a telephone interview that he had witnessed the attack, describing it as an errant strike on a government-controlled neighborhood, by Syrian warplanes flying at high altitude.
 * NYT: "Anti-government activists suggested that the government might have concocted the chemical attack story to cover up an episode in which it accidentally fired a Scud missile on a government-held area."
 * Al-Akhbar English: "We have neither long-range missiles nor chemical weapons. And if we did, we wouldn't use them against a rebel target," Louay Meqdad, a spokesperson for a rebel group, said.

No Evidence for Rebel CW Capability?
Uh, yes there is - capabilities, if limited, willingness, apparently signaled by chemical experiments on rabbits, along with threats against Syria's Alawites, and demonstrations of the large stock of Turkish-made chemicals they already had late in 2012 (see Tekkim Chemical Test Video). And we still don't know exactly what was used, so it's stupid to say no anti-government faction could possibly have, or be willing to use, the system used on March 19 against a government-held part of Khan Al-Assal. Further details forthcoming ...

United States
Initially, the United States cast doubt on both poison gas allegations. An Associated Press report, "U.S.: No evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria," passed on the White House dismissal of Syria's story, and added "a U.S. official told the AP there was no evidence either side had used such weapons Tuesday in an attack in northern Syria, disputing a competing claim by rebels that it was regime forces who fired the chemical weapon."

The New York Times ran a report by Anne Barnard capturing well the United States response after that. The core point underlying it is, as an official said, "the White House had “no information suggesting opposition groups have chemical weapons capability.”" Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, "said the administration was “deeply skeptical” of the assertions by President Assad’s government, and added that the manner they were examining the evidence was "carefully." Therefore, "In Washington, the White House cast doubt on claims that the opposition had used chemical weapons and said it was evaluating the possibility that the government had used them."

Since rebel chemicals and/or Scuds and/or fighters were ruled out, a long string of possible interpretations of Damascus' explanation were offered in the Times article:
 * "Some American officials worried aloud about whether the Syrian government was accusing rebels of using the weapons to prepare cover for its own future use of them."
 * "Anti-government activists suggested that the government might have concocted the chemical attack story to cover up an episode in which it accidentally fired a Scud missile on a government-held area."
 * "At the State Department, a spokeswoman also dismissed the Syrian government’s claim as an effort to distract from its use of long-range Scud missiles against civilians."
 * "The spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said the United States was looking into rebel claims that the government had used chemical weapons and tried to blame its opponents."

Senate war hawks took advantage; ABC News reported on Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, urging President Obama to militarily attack Syria, “if today’s reports are substantiated." They fail to specify what would constitute "substantiated," but rightly point out that “President Obama has said that the use of weapons of mass destruction by Bashar Assad is a ‘red line’ for him that ‘will have consequences." They urged him to follow up, if it was decided the line had been crossed.

Other Western Nations
UK: Foreign Office spokesman: "The use of chemical weapons would be abhorrent and universally condemned. The UK is clear that the use or proliferation of chemical weapons would demand a serious response from the international community and force us to revisit our approach so far." Presumably, this would apply to either side.

Russia
Moscow's reaction to the allegations was, predictably, quite different from the West's, and right from the start, as the Voice of Russia website presented it: First they "denied" it - or rather, "Russian diplomats in Damascus haven’t confirmed" the claims of a rebel attack. This was contrasted with the claim that "a number of Western news agencies earlier claimed that anti-Assad forces had launched a missile with chemical weapons," which they really didn't to any meaningful degree, if at all. But within about two hours, the Syrian government's claims gained traction. Moscow apparently found no sufficient hurdles to accepting that the rebels in Aleppo had deadly chemicals and were willing to use them. VoR:
 * "Information coming  from  Damascus  indicates  that  the  use  of chemical weapons  by the  armed opposition  was recorded  in the  Aleppo province early on March 19," the ministry said in a statement  available on its website. Moscow sees  this  fact  as  "a  new  and  extremely  alarming  and dangerous turn in the events in the Syrian crisis." "We are extremely, seriously concerned by the fact that weapons  of mass destruction have gotten into  militants' hands, which is  worsening the situation in  the SAR  even more  and brings  confrontation in  this country to a new level," it said.

Moscow "urged all sensible forces in  Syria  to stop  violence" and move towards talks, as per the Geneva communique of June, 2012. As other world powers inched towards blaming Damascus for the attact, the Russians followed with a demand for an investigation to first set the blame accurately. This began with a bit of backtracking; as Xinhua reported, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said on his Twitter account "The news about use of chemical weapons in Syria must be thoroughly investigated. So far, there are no credible evidences of that." The concern that CW "have gotten into militants' hands" became a prediction that they might, or might have; Gatilov added "we have already warned about the danger that chemical weapons could fall into the rebels' hands, which would push Syrian crisis to a new level of confrontation." The demand for an investigation was fused with a Syrian one: as Reuters reported, Syria's representative at the United Nations, Dr. Bashar Al-Ja'afari, said "the Syrian government has requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to form a specialized, independent and a neutral, technical mission to investigate the use by the terrorist groups operating in Syria of chemical weapons yesterday against civilians." A U.N. spokesman said they had recieved the request and were considering it.

Russia supported that request. However, both they and Syria complained, the UK and France blocked it. They wanted instead a probe into the rebel version, dividing attention also with a second alleged chemical attack of the same day, near Damascus. As Reuters reported: "Russia's U.N. envoy disagreed strongly with the idea of focusing an urgently needed U.N. investigation on multiple incidents. ... ""To me, a concern which I expressed in the council, was that this was really a way to delay the need for immediate, urgent investigation of allegations pertaining to March 19 by raising all sorts of issues," (Churkin) said." Ja'afari agreed, saying he'd never heard of this other allegation, proposing that it "was set up on purpose to torpedo the investigation on the real use of chemical weapons which took place in Aleppo. If there were any good intentions on the part of the French delegation they should have supported the Syrian request (for an investigation)."''

This concern could be heightened by the fact that yet another March 19 chemical attack was reported in Baba Amr, Homs (see March 19 Homs attack), thanks to the Local Coordination Committees. These collectors of reports from rebel commanders and other sources reported a Damascus chem. attack, as well as the Homs incident. But somehow they missed the big, proven one in Aleppo. Taken together, this could require a three-part probe, and suggests it was the rebels themselves who might have launched the "torpedo" Ja'afari spoke of, to help cloud the picture of what happened in Aleppo, and cause eyes to glaze over with overwhelmed confusion.

Iran
Al-Akhbar English reported:
 * "The Islamic republic of Iran strongly condemns the inhumane act by armed opposition groups in using chemical weapons in the city of Aleppo," foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said.

The Associated Press added:
 * "Undoubtedly, the responsibilities of a repetition of such crimes would fall on those committing it and the countries that support them," [Mehmanparast] was quoted by state TV as saying, apparently referring to Gulf states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia