The attack was especially conspicuous given the presence in Damascus of a team sent by the United Nations to investigate chemical strikes reportedly waged earlier in the war.
The Security Council, meeting in emergency session, issued a statement calling for a prompt investigation of the allegations and a cease-fire in the conflict, but took no further action.
“I can say that there is a strong concern among Council members about the allegations and a general sense that there must be clarity on what happened, and that the situation has to be followed carefully,” said María Cristina Perceval of Argentina, the president of the Council, after the meeting.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said late Wednesday that more than 130 people had been confirmed dead in attacks around Damascus, though it could not confirm the use of gas.
The video record posted online did not provide enough detail to draw a complete picture of what happened. Unlike the videos often uploaded by the opposition, the images on Wednesday did not show the immediate aftermath of the attacks in the communities.
-In other words no images of damages from the alleged rocket attack
The videos, experts said, also did not prove the use of chemical weapons, which interfere with the nervous system and can cause defecation, vomiting, intense salivation and tremors. Only some of those symptoms were visible in some patients
Ah yes, the bubbling saliva. Small children can do that one so well. So, it makes sense adults can bubble spit up in their mouth. Also bubble spitting images do not indicate time, day or location.
Gwyn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World, a journal that covers unconventional weapons, said that the medics would most likely have been sickened by exposure to so many people dosed with chemical weapons — a phenomenon not seen in the videosInteresting, if there was as much chems used as claimed by the NATO/IDF Islamic army the medics treating them would be sickened but that did not appear to be the case.
Or to quote from above “a phenomenon not seen in the videos”
Russia wrote off the attack as a “preplanned provocation” orchestrated by the rebels and said they had launched the gas with a homemade rocket from an area they controlled.
“All of this looks like an attempt at all costs to create a pretext for demanding that the U.N. Security Council side with opponents of the regime and undermine the chances of convening the Geneva conference,”
The Syrian Army, in a statement read on state television, denied having used chemical weapons, calling the accusations part of a “filthy media war” in favor of the rebels. The claims “are nothing but a desperate effort to cover their defeat on the ground, and reflect the state of hysteria, confusion and collapse of these gangs and those who support them,” the statement said.
Despite the myriad of problems with this latest psychological operation. The NATO nutter nations are still at it. Turkey, Israel and France are making the most noise. Or at least getting the most coverage for the day-
Turkey says “all red lines have been crossed”
"All red lines have been crossed but still the U.N. Security Council has not even been able to take a decision. This is a responsibility for the sides who still set these red lines and for all of us," Davutoglu told reporters in Berlin.Israel intelligence is backing the reports claimed to be true by the Islamic IDF
Israeli intelligence believes that Wednesday's reports of a chemical attack in Damascus are credible, a senior Israeli official said on Thursday.
France is demanding a ‘use of force’
France said on Thursday that outside powers should respond “with force” if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed.
General Dempsey and the Obama administration are opposed to even ‘limited U.S. military intervention in Syria”
"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," Dempsey said in the letter Aug. 19 to Representative Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, that was obtained by The Associated Press.
"It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not.
Since the US is already intervening abundantly how is one to take this reasoning from General Dempsey? Would this opposition have more to do with the gains on the ground made by the SAA?