Doctors Without Borders confirmed: "mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent"

[ProSense]

<...>

On August 24, MSF announced that three hospitals it supplies in Syria’s Damascus governorate had reportedly received 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms, of which 355 died. Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required, and therefore called for an independent investigation to shed light on what would constitute, if confirmed, a massive and unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law.

MSF also stated that in its role as an independent medical humanitarian organization, it was not in a position to determine responsibility for the event. Now that an investigation is underway by United Nations inspectors, MSF rejects that our statement be used as a substitute for the investigation or as a justification for military action. MSF's sole purpose is to save lives, alleviate the suffering of populations torn by Syrian conflict, and bear witness when confronted with a critical event, in strict compliance with the principles of neutrality and impartiality.

The latest massive influx of patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in Damascus governorate comes on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation facing the Syrian people, one characterized by extreme violence, displacement, the destruction of medical facilities, and severely limited or blocked humanitarian action.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7033&cat=press-release

The comparisons between Syria and Iraq are absurd. Iraq had no WMD. There was a chemical attack in Syria.

The question is not if there was an attack, but the type of substance used.

The U.S. government is gathering and presenting its evidence, including information on the source of the attacks. The DWB statement mentions the UN investigation.

Syria: Ban briefed by UN disarmament chief on latest developments - UN spokesperson

31 August 2013 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today met with the top United Nations disarmament official, just back from Damascus, on the chemical weapons investigation and the latest developments in Syria. The meeting comes as the UN inspection team arrived in the Netherlands earlier today to carry out a rapid analysis of samples gathered.

UN Spokesperson Martin Nesirky told reporters in New York that Mr. Ban met with UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane for over an hour.

“Ms. Kane briefed the Secretary-General on her trip and on the current status of the investigation,” Mr. Nesirky said, adding that that she thanked the Syrian Government and opposition for their cooperation during this mission. Ms. Kane had been in Damascus, at Mr. Ban's request, meeting with the Syrian Government to facilitate access for the team of inspectors, who arrived on 18 August.

<...>

The inspection team, led by Swedish scientist Dr. Åke Sellström, is now in The Hague, the headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon (OPCW), which is assisting the probe, along with the UN World Health Organization (WHO).

- more -

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45744&Cr=Syria&Cr1=

[cthulu2016]

1. So what? It was a false flag operation connected to

some ten year old discussion of maybe building an oil pipeline.

Because everything that ever happened anywhere at any time was a false-flag operation connected to some ten year old discussion of maybe building an oil pipeline.

(Yes, I am kidding.)

[lumpy]

57. What has this (what ever it is , have to do with the UN reports ?

A joke ?

[TomClash]

2. Somehow you forgot this part

"Over the last two days, the American, British, and other governments have referred to reports from several groups, including Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), while stating that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was “undeniable” and designating the perpetrators.

MSF today warned that its medical information could not be used as evidence to certify the precise origin of the exposure to a neurotoxic agent or to attribute responsibility."

[pnwmom]

4. No one has been claiming that the DWB could certify the "precise origin of the exposure

to a neurotoxic agent or to attribute responsibility."

Obama and Kerry made it clear that that conclusion comes from information drawn from other sources.

[TomClash]

16. Then why did MSF issue this press release? Nt

[pnwmom]

17. To underline the fact that they are a neutral organization

which is critical to their continued work worldwide.

[TomClash]

19. Oh please

They did it to dispute the SOS attempt to conflate MSF's statements into an endorsement of the US position that Syria used chemical weapons.

[pnwmom]

21. No. They didn't want people to think that they were asserting more than they were.

They found that "a" neurotoxic agent had been used, but they could not identify "the" toxic agent that had been used.

[TomClash]

37. What nonsense

Read it.


"28 August 2013 - Over the last two days, the US Administration and other governmental authorities have referred to reports from several agencies, including Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), while stating that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was “undeniable” and to designate the perpetrators. MSF today warned that its medical information could not be used as evidence to certify the precise origin of the exposure to a neurotoxic agent nor to attribute responsibility."

[pnwmom]

40. It says what I said it did. They couldn't

"certify the precise origin of the exposure to a neurotoxic agent nor to attribute responsibility."

[lumpy]

58. Only in your mind.

[JackRiddler]

27. Yes indeed - Israeli intel, it seems.

Totally reliable sources.

[ProSense]

5. Where does the OP attribute "precise origin" to DWB?

The organization, as the OP states, confirmed "mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent."

[TomClash]

18. It doesn't

But that was the primary purpose of the MSF press release, not to demonstrate there ws a chemical attack.

[ProSense]

26. The "primary purpose" doesn't take away from the fact that they confirmed the situation. n/t

[TomClash]

36. But

You disingenuously used the press release.

[ProSense]

38. What? Are you saying that DWB didn't make the statement in the OP? n/t

[TomClash]

41. First the OP is YOU

Not some third person.

Second, I am saying your post is disingenuous because MSF had already confirmed there was a chemical attack on 24 August, four days earlier. They were issuing a press release to criticize Obama and Kerry for conflating their findings with blaming Syria. You omit that part intentionally.

[ProSense]

43. "OP" means original post. A post is not a "person"

"Second, I am saying your post is disingenuous because MSF had already confirmed there was a chemical attack on 24 August, four days earlier."

What? So you agree they "confirmed" it, but you're upset that the previous press release wasn't cited?

"They were issuing a press release to criticize Obama and Kerry for conflating their findings with blaming Syria. You omit that part intentionally."

See the second paragraph of the snip in the OP. Nothing was omitted. The point was about confirming use of chemicals. The OP has does not claim that DWB supports the U.S. claim about Assad.

[TomClash]

78. You are obfuscating the point

Acting obtuse when you know exactly what I mean.

[lumpy]

66. That part supposidly that the MSF issued a press release to criticize Obama and Kerry....Where did

you glean that bit of info ? The MSF dosn't issue that sort of statement, they are neutral in their findings.

[TomClash]

76. It's in the first paragraph

Read it. I have already posted it twice.

[tabasco]

62. Are you the board chairman for MSF?

How the fuck do you know the "primary purpose" of the press release?

[lumpy]

67. A good question that just might be difficult to answer.

Bet you won't get a straight answer.

[TomClash]

74. Maybe because I

"Fuckin" read the FIRST paragraph.

[HooptieWagon]

3. There hasn't been much doubt of WHAT.

The question of WHO is still uncertain. And the question of US involvement improving the situation is highly debatable.

[ProSense]

6. That question

"The question of WHO is still uncertain. "

...is uncertain to you, but the U.S. government has presented evidence that points to the Assad government.

[polichick]

7. The U.S. gov't doing the work of the people, or the bidding of the mic?...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023575499

[ProSense]

8. You don't have to

"The U.S. gov't doing the work of the people, or the bidding of the mic?..."

...believe the U.S. government. You can even accuse the President and Secretary Kerry of lying about the origin, but that isn't the point of the OP.

The point is that there was a chemical attack.

[atreides1]

9. The US government has presented evidence before

And then launched an attack on Iraq resulting in the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqis and over 4,000 Us military personnel!

Leaves me just a tad bit leery of any evidence presented by the US government...and when one considers that it's a very good possibility that those who collected the "evidence" against Iraq are the very same ones who are collecting "evidence" against Syria!

Color me cynical...

[ProSense]

10. Oh brother. The Iraq evidence of WMD that didn't exist?

Are you saying there wasn't a chemical attack in Syria?

[daleo]

24. He is saying that government justifications for war have been shown to be incorrect

So a relatively high standard of evidence is needed before those justifications should be consider as adequate as a basis for war.

[lumpy]

60. This is about Syria not Iraq. Be cynical if you please.

[BlueMTexpat]

13. The "evidence" appears to come from sources

that are hardly unbiased.

Sorry, Pro. You and I are usually on the same page. But not on this issue.

Let's see what the UN report mentions - and if MSF, who are and have been literally on the ground in Syria (as they usually are in most areas of the world where there is civil conflict), have reason to suspect that agents other than the Assad regime may have caused the attack, it certainly behooves us all to listen before swallowing whole "evidence" that is NOT a "slam dunk" by any means.

[ProSense]

14. You know,

"The 'evidence' appears to come from sources that are hardly unbiased. Let's see what the UN report mentions - and if MSF, who are and have been literally on the ground in Syria (as they usually are in most areas of the world where there is civil conflict), have reason to suspect that agents other than the Assad regime may have caused the attack, it certainly behooves us all to listen before swallowing whole 'evidence' that is NOT a "slam dunk" by any means."

...I doubt if the UN confirms the U.S. position that some people will be satisfied. As for the phrase "slam dunk," Kerry addressed that.

DAVID GREGORY:

Mr. Secretary, I just want to underline the news you made this morning. This is a sarin gas attack, perpetrated by the Assad regime, this is a slam-dunk case that he did it?

SECRETARY JOHN KERRY:

The word "slam-dunk" should be retired from the American national security issues. We are saying that the high confidence that the intelligence community has expressed and the case that I laid out the other day is growing stronger by the day. We know where this attack came from. We know exactly where it went. We know what happened exactly afterwards.

We know the preparations were being taken before for this attack, we know people were told to use their gas mask to prepare for the use of the chemical barrage. We also know that after it took place, they acknowledged that they had done it and were worried about the consequences and whether the U.N. inspectors were going to find out.

I think this is a very powerful case and the president is confident that as that case is presented to the United States Congress and the American people, people will recognize that the world cannot stand aside and allow an Assad or anybody else to break a almost 100-year-old acceptance. These weapons are not to be used.

http://nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/nbcnews/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2013/09/01/rushtranscriptj1415026.xml

[BlueMTexpat]

15. We will just have to agree to disagree for now.

If the UN report indeed confirms the US conclusions, I will be happy to change my mind about attribution.

Until then, absolutely not.

I traveled throughout the ME on TDYs during my working years. (I'm now "officially" retired.) I also lived and worked in Arabic-speaking North Africa for eight years, four of them as a private citizen.

From my own firsthand experience, it would not be the first time that the US government drew totally wrong conclusions about things that occurred in the region ... about which too many know or understand much too little.

[Savannahmann]

28. Um, I think you forgot your thread of yesterday.

"The 'evidence' appears to come from sources that are hardly unbiased. Let's see what the UN report mentions - and if MSF, who are and have been literally on the ground in Syria (as they usually are in most areas of the world where there is civil conflict),

However yesterday in the thread started by you. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023567380

It was clearly demonstrated by a post of yours that DWB was not on the ground.

Since 2012, MSF has built a strong and reliable collaboration with medical networks, hospitals and medical points in the Damascus governorate, and has been providing them with drugs, medical equipment and technical support. Due to significant security risks, MSF staff members have not been able to access the facilities. - See more at: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release#sthash.8WDqsTjV.WDu39C5o.dpuf

Since there is nothing in todays press release to counter that information, nothing in this press release says that they are on the ground, why would you assert that they are? Have you forgotten the information you provided yesterday? Or do you hope that none of us will remember it and allow you to go forward with this disproven claim in an effort to gin up support for illegal military action?

[ProSense]

34. No, I didn't

"Um, I think you forgot your thread of yesterday."

...forget my post.

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens. “However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events—characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons.”

Again, they cannot confirm the type of agent used, but an agent was used.

The UN will confirm the type, which is what DWB is awaiting.

[lumpy]

63. "The MSF has reason to suspect that agents other than the assad regime may have caused the

attack" your quote. You said it. Please give a reliable source for your statement. The MSF is not suppose to give opinion as to who might be responsible.

[JackRiddler]

29. The USG just blocked complete investigation...

by declaring the case against Assad definitive on the basis of Israeli intel reports and preparing immediate bombardment, causing the UN to withdraw the inspection team that was already in place before the gas attack. The USG "evidence" meanwhile is Israeli intel hear-say and supposed super-secret intercepts. (This is the same USG that many times has confabulated the cause for wars and that more recently was officially denying any form of NSA spying on domestic targets just before the Snowden revelations exposed that as a total lie.)

Why didn't the USG wait for the UN inspectors to make a proper investigation and issue a finding, rather than force them out of the country on the basis of extremely weak "evidence"?

[ProSense]

69. Actually,

"Why didn't the USG wait for the UN inspectors to make a proper investigation and issue a finding, rather than force them out of the country on the basis of extremely weak "evidence"?"

...the UN is doing its investigation and rejects that assertion.

U.N. rejects suggestion it's pulling out of Syria to allow strikes

(Reuters) - The United Nations on Saturday vehemently rejected suggestions that the world body was somehow stepping aside to allow U.S. air strikes on Syria and said its humanitarian work in the conflict-ravaged country would continue.

"I have seen all kinds of reporting suggesting that the departure of the chemical weapons team somehow opens a window for military action of some kind," U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters.

"Frankly, that's grotesque, and it's also an affront to the more than 1,000 staff, U.N. staff, who are on the ground in Syria delivering humanitarian aid and who will continue to deliver critical aid," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE97U0AD20130831

Obama's bid to Congress on Syria part of push for global backing: U.N.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023577926

[JackRiddler]

93. Incredible how full of it your posts are.

"I have seen all kinds of reporting suggesting that the departure of the chemical weapons team somehow opens a window for military action of some kind,"

THEY LEFT. THE INVESTIGATORS LEFT, it says right in your quoted matter.

I don't care what excuses they're giving. Doesn't change the facts. They left soon as the US promised to bomb Syria.

At least you don't make up the quotes... just package them so that they'll say the opposite in your mind and in the minds of the easily intimidated.

[ProSense]

94. So now you're claiming the UN is lying? n/t

[JackRiddler]

95. Same old same old same old

You did the same thing back with Nadler and I have no idea how many other times. When it suits you you'll show sophistication about the supposed need for politicians and diplomats to be flexible with truth and face-saving ritualism, and when it doesn't you'll play this kind of utter literalism.

YAWN!!!

PS - Thank me for the kick. I'll try to avoid that again on this thread.

[ProSense]

96. You are deflecting. You made a claim about the UN, and then dismissed the UN statement. n/t

[JackRiddler]

97. Yawn. Yawn. Yawn.

[WovenGems]

11. Less than 10% deaths

That's one piss poor neurotoxin.

[ProSense]

12. No, that was at the time of the statement, which was only days after the incident

The OP statement is in reference to citing the original release on August 24: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release

The casaulties cited by Kerry is more than 1,400.

[Barack_America]

32. Dude, that's 10% of people who MADE it to the hospital.

Most didn't.

[Posteritatis]

35. Pooh-poohing nerve gas' effectiveness. God, this place is classy today. (nt)

[Hekate]

83. "Classy" is DU's middle name these days. nt

[MFrohike]

20. You didn't read

MSF did not confirm anything because they have no firsthand knowledge of the situation. None of their personnel, despite your claim higher in the thread, are in Syria. They have been extremely clear about this in the two press releases. If you're going to make false claims, don't link the evidence that shows it.

Sheesh, you even highlighted the section from the press release which emphasizes the fact they haven't confirmed anything. Read closer in the future.

Edited because original title was over the top. Sorry about that.

[ProSense]

22. I can read, the

You can't read

MSF did not confirm anything because they have no firsthand knowledge of the situation. None of their personnel, despite your claim higher in the thread, are in Syria. They have been extremely clear about this in the two press releases. If you're going to make false claims, don't link the evidence that shows it.

Sheesh, you even highlighted the section from the press release which emphasizes the fact they haven't confirmed anything. Read closer in the future.

...the question is can you. Here:

Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required, and therefore called for an independent investigation to shed light on what would constitute, if confirmed, a massive and unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law.

Confirmed: "mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent."

Unconfirmed: type of "toxic agent."

The latest massive influx of patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in Damascus governorate comes on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation facing the Syrian people...

Clearly a "massive influx of patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms" isn't a figment of the group's imagination.

[MFrohike]

23. Sigh

indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent

Taken from your highlighted quotation above. Are indicate and confirm synonyms?

[lumpy]

70. Oh God I have to get the hell out of here. Like being in an insane asylum.

I guess they think that because the MSF doesn't finger the perpetrators of the gassing that is didn't really happen ? Or what? Assure me that I'm not going crazy.

[Hekate]

87. There, there. Sometimes consensual reality ...

... is really just mass hysteria. The fact-based universe is not for everyone -- sometimes you really do have to walk away from the village until they stop finding witches to burn.

From this thread I have gleaned the fact that a lot of people really have no clue what Médecins Sans Frontières aka Doctors Without Borders is -- who they are, what they do, or anything else.

Pointless to inform the ignorant, in this case. They know where Google is.

[rug]

25. They have expilicitly objected to being used for propaganda purposes.

They have explicitly stated they do not know who used chemicals.

Are you prepared to call for military action against the opposition if that turns out to be the case?

[ProSense]

31. "They have explicitly stated they do not know who used chemicals."

See you agree that chemicals were used. The OP does not claim that DWB knows "who used chemicals," only that it confirms the use of them.

[rug]

33. "They have expilicitly objected to being used for propaganda purposes."

Since you clearly are advocating support for the Administration's intention to mount a military attack on Syria, are you prepared to advocate for a military attack on the opposition if it is determined that is the source? You avoided answering that question once. You now have a second chance.

BTW, MSF can not say, nor have they said, what the nature of the chemicals is.

[ProSense]

39. Right,

"BTW, MSF can not say, nor have they said, what the nature of the chemicals is."

...the organization hasn't confirmed the type of "toxic agent," only the use of one.

[rug]

44. And not by whom.

But they are certain of this.

"They have expilicitly objected to being used for propaganda purposes."

Is there a reason you refuse to answer my question?

[ProSense]

45. Yes, we've established that DWB didn't state the origin.

"Is there a reason you refuse to answer my question?"

This question: Are you prepared to call for military action against the opposition if that turns out to be the case?

I'm not the one calling for military action, and I suspect that whomever is responsible should be held accountable.

What I find strange is the attempt to claim with certainty that it was the rebels when there is more credible evidence that the Assad government is responsible.

Worse is the attempt to claim it was an accident. It's almost as if those pushing that claim don't want anyone held accountable for the attacks.

Amnesty International on use of chemical weapons in Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023555922

[rug]

46. The distinction between discussion and propaganda is honesty.

You are clearly shilling for the Administration's policy of taking military action against Syria. And you are cloaking that with the horror of chemical war.

So, consider the question a test of honesty so I can distinguish whether you advocacy is in service of propaganda or truth.

Will you support military action against the opposition if that is the source of the chemical weapons?

And you are calling for military action because that is what the Administration is calling for.

Disabuse me of my misperception. Either state if you are or are not calling for military action and , for the fourth time, please answer my question.

[ProSense]

47. You can't be serious?

"The distinction between discussion and propaganda is honesty.

You are clearly shilling for the Administration's policy of taking military action against Syria. And you are cloaking that with the horror of chemical war. "

Are you seriously trying to dismiss the atrocity of a chemical attack?

"Will you support military action against the opposition if that is the source of the chemical weapons? "

If they are responsible, they should be held accountable.

Now that your hypothetical has been addressed, who do you believe is responsible.

I believe it's the Assad government. If you don't know who is responsible, then you are going to have to determine from the evidence presented by the U.S. or UN.

The U.S. government is going to take action based on what it knows.

"And you are calling for military action because that is what the Administration is calling for."

No, I'm not. Congress will have this debate and will decide.

"Disabuse me of my misperception. Either state if you are or are not calling for military action and , for the fourth time, please answer my question."

Your problem is that you're too focused on my opinion, and not the facts. It doesn't matter what I want. I am more interested in the facts surrounding the attack. This is what will determine who should be held accountable, something you apparently aren't interested in.

The UN is going to issue a report. I'm also interested in its findings.

[rug]

48. There can be no more serious discussion, even on the internet, than talking about killing people.

There are few things more revolting than anonymous posters glibly calling for military attacks to score political points.

That said, thank you for finally answering the question, sort of. Although "held accountable" is not quite the same thing as advocating military action.

I'm hardly too focused on your opinion. Frankly, it is hard to ignore, given your persistent posts and links which inevitably lead to whitehouse.gov.

No, I'm more interested in separating propaganda from fact.

[ProSense]

49. Well,

"There can be no more serious discussion, even on the internet, than talking about killing people.

There are few things more revolting than anonymous posters glibly calling for military attacks to score political points."

...it's a good thing you're here policing the Internets. What does that have to do with the point of the OP?

"That said, thank you for finally answering the question, sort of. Although "held accountable" is not quite the same thing as advocating military action.

I'm hardly too focused on your opinion. Frankly, it is hard to ignore, given your persistent posts and links which inevitably lead to whitehouse.gov.

No, I'm more interested in separating propaganda from fact."

Still, you are here discussing my opinion on military action instead of the point in the OP, which you apparent agree with: there was a chemical attack in Syria.

You went off that point so much so that you current comment is about people on Internet "talking about killing people."

[rug]

52. Reading DU is hardly policing the internet.

Shall I read you your rights?

The OP was used to support your view that the U.S. should attack Syria. Even though MSF objected to the use of their humanitarian work for that purpose.

The point is not whether there was a chemical attack but whether there should be a Syrian attack. Which, btw, does involve killing people. My only interest in your opinion is why you so avidly desire it.

[ProSense]

54. No,

"The OP was used to support your view that the U.S. should attack Syria. Even though MSF objected to the use of their humanitarian work for that purpose. "

...the OP did no such thing.

[rug]

55. Are you saying it does not support your view of attacking Syria or

that attacking Syria is not your view?

The use of chemical weapons is not really the issue. Who is responsible is the issue. MSF stated it does not know..

[ProSense]

59. What the hell are you talking about? n/t

[rug]

64. Read the thread. Communication is a two way street.

[ProSense]

65. You appear to be having a discussion with yourself. n/t

[rug]

68. Don't flatter yourself.

[lumpy]

73. Do you think the UN report (MSF) supports anyone's view of attacking Syria ?

It does not, it only confirms the use of chemical weapons. It's hard to understand what you are getting at. What ?

[lumpy]

71. MSF and UN members are not permitted to draw political conclusions as to who is responsible

for attacks. No, they don't know who was responsible and wouldn't tell you even if they did.
So what was the nebulous question again ? Call for military action against the opposition if WHAT turns out to be the case ? Do you think the MSF is going to give their political opinion?

[rug]

72. You misread it. It is: if it turns out the attack came from one of the opposition forces.

[lumpy]

75. Oh thanks, you didn't make that clear. I haven't made up my mind as yet, if you really care.

n

[JackRiddler]

30. Distraction to pimp for current administration policy...

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

So? Everyone knows there was a chemical attack.

MSF provides no attribution as to who was responsible, which is the sole important point you are trying to pretend has been settled here.

[ProSense]

42. "So? Everyone knows there was a chemical attack."

"MSF provides no attribution as to who was responsible, which is the sole important point you are trying to pretend has been settled here. "

Nonsense, I made no such claim. I stated that the U.S. government is gathering and presenting its evidence, including information on the source of the attacks.

The OP does not claim that DWB has stated the source of the attack.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. They've moved on from "Do we even know there was a chemical attack" and "So what if there was?"

The new line in the sand is:

Yes, OK, there was a chemical weapons attack on a civilian population, and, yes, that's horrific, but we don't know who did it, except we do: it was the opposition backed by Saudis."

So, the first two points having been conceded, you'll need to work on the third if you hope to achieve anything.

[lumpy]

79. What source proves that the rebels were supplied by Saudis ?

What two points were conceded by whom ? None I'm sure.

[CakeGrrl]

84. Chemicals, schmemicals

'Give us a REALLY good reason to do something!'

[Cerridwen]

51. Did they also confirm who perpetrated the attack? n/t

[lumpy]

81. No they didn't. They are prevented to draw conclusions as to who perpetuated the gas attack.

Most of the time it pays to read what is written. They (MSF) are not allowed to conclude who perpetuated any attacks. The UN is a valuable read, that is if you read.

[idwiyo]

53. scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required - meaning it's not confirmed by MSF

But you know that. Thanks for another misleading OP title.

[ProSense]

56. That's a reference to the type of "toxic agent"

"scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required - meaning it's not confirmed by MSF

But you know that. Thanks for another misleading OP title."

There is nothing "misleading" about the title.

The "mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent" was caused by a "toxic agent." The organization has not confirmed the type of "toxic agent" used.

That, DWB states, will be determined by the UN.

[idwiyo]

77. MSF does not confirm anything. MSF clearly stated they had second hand info. MSF also

clearly said "Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required"
Meaning that at the present they do not know what toxic agent was used.

The title of your OP is misleading, to say the least. Though I am not surprised, of course.

[ProSense]

80. So

"MSF does not confirm anything. MSF clearly stated they had second hand info. MSF also clearly said 'Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required'"
Meaning that at the present they do not know what toxic agent was used.

The title of your OP is misleading, to say the least. Though I am not surprised, of course."

...you're going to make the point I made, which is that DWB can't confirm the type of "toxic agent" used, and claim the OP title is "misleading"?

There is nothing wrong with the OP title.

[idwiyo]

82. You used a misleading OP title to add weight to your statement. MSF does not confirm what you insist

is does.

The title of your OP is misleading, to say the least.

[ProSense]

86. It most certainly confirmed that a "toxic agent" was used. I mean,

"You used a misleading OP title to add weight to your statement. MSF does not confirm what you insist is does. "

...you're trying to make a confusing point. You previously stated:

"MSF does not confirm anything. MSF clearly stated they had second hand info. MSF also clearly said 'Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required'"

The organization isn't issuing its statement based on speculation. As you said, the "MSF also clearly said..."

Clearly.

[idwiyo]

88. I am quoting MSF, not making unfounded pronouncemnts liike you do.

According to their first press release they have only second hand info. Because they only have second hand reports without any lab data to show what was involved, they called for independent scientific investigation to determine what toxic agent was used.

The title of MSF second statement:

Response to Government References to MSF Syria Statement

Over the last two days, the American, British, and other governments have referred to reports from several groups, including Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), while stating that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was “undeniable” and designating the perpetrators.

MSF issued their second statement because others tried to twist what MSF said for their own purposes.

You clearly tried to imply that MSF "Doctors Without Borders confirmed: "mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent" (bolding is mine).


The title of your OP title is misleading to say the least.

[ProSense]

89. No, you're dismissing the orgnaization's statements as "second hand reports."

From the first statement, they are providing the drug to treat symptoms of a chemical attack. This is direct involvement.

<...>

Patients were treated using MSF-supplied atropine, a drug used to treat neurotoxic symptoms. MSF is now trying to replenish the facilities’ empty stocks and provide additional medical supplies and guidance.

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens. “However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events—characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons.”

In addition to 1,600 vials of atropine supplied over recent months, MSF has now dispatched 7,000 additional vials to facilities in the area. Treatment of neurotoxic patients is now being fully integrated into MSF’s medical strategies in all its programs in Syria. “MSF hopes that independent investigators will be given immediate access to shed light on what happened,” said Christopher Stokes, MSF general director.

“This latest attack and subsequent massive medical need come on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation, characterised by extreme violence, displacement, and deliberate destruction of medical facilities. In the case of such extreme violations of humanitarian law, humanitarian assistance cannot respond effectively and becomes meaningless itself.”

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release

The statement in the OP explicitly states:

Although our information indicates mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent, MSF clearly stated that scientific confirmation of the toxic agent was required, and therefore called for an independent investigation to shed light on what would constitute, if confirmed, a massive and unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law.

Confirmed: "mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent."

Unconfirmed: type of "toxic agent."

The latest massive influx of patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in Damascus governorate comes on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation facing the Syrian people...

Clearly a "massive influx of patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms" isn't a figment of the group's imagination.

[idwiyo]

90. Another misleading statement from you. Not surprising though.

MSF clearly said they had second hand data.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release

Brussels/New York, August 24, 2013 -- Three hospitals in Syria's Damascus governorate that are supported by the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) have reported to MSF that they received approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in less than three hours on the morning of Wednesday, August 21, 2013. Of those patients, 355 reportedly died.

Since 2012, MSF has built a strong and reliable collaboration with medical networks, hospitals and medical points in the Damascus governorate, and has been providing them with drugs, medical equipment and technical support. Due to significant security risks, MSF staff members have not been able to access the facilities.

“Medical staff working in these facilities provided detailed information to MSF doctors regarding large numbers of patients arriving with symptoms including convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress,” said Dr. Bart Janssens, MSF director of operations.
...

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens.
...

“MSF hopes that independent investigators will be given immediate access to shed light on what happened,” said Christopher Stokes, MSF general director.

Edited to add: The title of your original OP is misleading to say the lest. The title of your reply to me is also misleading.

[ProSense]

92. More nonsense from you.

"MSF clearly said they had second hand data. "

You are implying that the organzation issued its statement without independent confirmation of the facts. Let's analyze

Brussels/New York, August 24, 2013 -- Three hospitals in Syria's Damascus governorate that are supported by the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) have reported to MSF that they received approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in less than three hours on the morning of Wednesday, August 21, 2013. Of those patients, 355 reportedly died.

Are you claiming that the hospitals are lying to DWD?

Since 2012, MSF has built a strong and reliable collaboration with medical networks, hospitals and medical points in the Damascus governorate, and has been providing them with drugs, medical equipment and technical support. Due to significant security risks, MSF staff members have not been able to access the facilities.

The reports are from trusted DWB networks. The orgnization is not issuing a release challenging its own information.

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens. “However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events—characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons.”

Not being able to confirm the type of toxic agent or the origins of the attacks does not detract from the fact that they confirmed the attacks.

In addition to 1,600 vials of atropine supplied over recent months, MSF has now dispatched 7,000 additional vials to facilities in the area. Treatment of neurotoxic patients is now being fully integrated into MSF’s medical strategies in all its programs in Syria.

“MSF hopes that independent investigators will be given immediate access to shed light on what happened,” said Christopher Stokes, MSF general director. “This latest attack and subsequent massive medical need come on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation, characterised by extreme violence, displacement, and deliberate destruction of medical facilities. In the case of such extreme violations of humanitarian law, humanitarian assistance cannot respond effectively and becomes meaningless itself.”

Again, confirmation of an "attack" and "massive" consequences.

[idwiyo]

99. The only nonsense before your latest response was the title of your original OP.

I am not "claiming" anything. I am quoting MSF. You, on the other hand offered misleading OP title and a lot of insinuation and misinterpretation of what MSF actually said and what my replies to you said.

I am not surprised, although I am amused watching you trying to spin this one.

[lumpy]

85. I am gone. This is too much. Clearly there is lack of reading comprehension, a lot of ignorance,

miss information, confusion as in so many DU posts.
I wish you luck in your educational endeavors, Prosense. Bye

[tabasco]

61. Throw 'em under the bus!

The facts don't fit the utopians' ideology.

[David Krout]

91. I like the fact that Doctors Without Borders want an independent investigation

Looks like a USA investigation, such as the one peddled by Kerry/Obama, is useless to them.

Kudos.

[freshwest]

98. Do you remember the memes that Iraq had chemical WMD because we sold them to Saddam...