tigertot wrote:
It seems the chemicals used were not nerve agents but chlorine. Bombing factories might be symbolic, but Assad can just nip to Boyes & buy some more. I am touched that Trump & Co are so appalled by the use of chemicals. Presumably he was equally upset when the US coalition used white phosphorus in civilian neighbourhoods in Raqqa last year?
The general consensus based on initial evidence seems to be that chlorine and sarin were both used in the attack. Chlorine is a chemical weapon - a 'choking agent'. Sarin, as I'm sure you're aware, is a nerve agent. Use of both are illegal according to international law - the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
Chlorine attacks - normally via barrel bomb - are not uncommon in Syria, however they have been largely ignored as chlorine is a common chemical and cannot therefore be easily regulated or traced, and because it requires higher concentrations and longer exposure it tends to injure rather than kill. The relatively high number of deaths and indeed the symptoms of many victims on this occasion point to a nerve agent.
I'm sure Assad could ultimately still produce and use sarin in the future. However, by destroying existing production and storage facilities we damage his ability to do so. It also sends a message to him and his Russian cronies that they cannot act with impunity.
Going to the UN is utterly pointless as Russia vetoes everything. That's why Corbyn's hand-wringing is nothing but empty words. Nothing will change the fact Assad will win this war, but if the international community sits back and ignores sarin attacks a very dangerous precedent is being set. The strong international reaction to the Salisbury attack shows just how seriously nerve agent attacks are viewed.
FFS, when the French are leading the charge you know there must be a strong case.
