ISIS Is Suspected of a Chemical Attack Against Kurds in Syria

Why "American" (U.S.) action?

In regional affairs, the region should respond or the international community (United Nations).

The reflex assertion that the U.S. Should respond is both thoughtless and ill advised, in my judgement.

Overall it seems painfully impossible to take down a group like ISIS. They mingle with innocent citizens; they savor dying for their cause so fear of death doesn't deter their wicked ways; they practice gorilla warfare; they abide by no rules of war. Experience has shown that warring with those kinds of factors in place, doesn't work. Yet, Mahatma Gandhi saw hope in what appears hopeless when he said: "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end they always fall. Think of it always." The million dollar question is how to legitimately help them fall while also protecting the innocents in their midst. A double bind.

"But Mr. Obama has said that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line that could force American action."

Everyone know how "serious" Obama is with his red lines.

I don't believe the "possible" use of chemical weapons by ISIS changes anything. If there is justification for further engagement, which I doubt, there is already plenty of justification. It seems to me irresponsible to report this story without more evidence as it is likely to provide more ammunition for the war mongers in the Republican Party. If you have verifiable facts, so be it. It does not appear that is the case. Creating panic and fear without facts is really bad journalism in my opinion.

Beheadings, organized rape, chemical weapons - what are we waiting for?

Why? Why should the U.S. feel this "pressure" to step in? Why is it more important to us than it is to the neighboring powers of Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and particularly the Saudis. I know Iraq is a basket case with zero military capability after years of American blood and treasure, but the Saudis have plenty of muscle. The Turks seem far less concerned about ISIS than the Kurds.

I see little positive benefit to the U.S. to try, once again, to direct the chessboard of the M.E. It is undergoing the inevitable shakeout and realignment following the collapse of the post-WWI Sykes-Picot Order, the earlier Western attempt to "bring order" to the M.E., to Western benefit with no regard to local and regional realities.

And I'm going to send the first guy that says "oil" or "Israel" to the corner.

Suspected of using chemical weapons? ISIS has demonstrated time and time again that they will use any method possible to conquer and subjugate. They have committed mass murder, genocide, sell females into sex slavery, rape for divinity, and those are just the crimes against humanity that have been uncovered so far.

ISIS will use any weapon, any means, to accomplish their goals. Theirs is a world where the ends justify the means without bound.

Chemical weapons? Why wouldn't they use them? The only restriction placed upon them is access.

This is not our fight. It is the world's fight. Most importantly, it is the Sunni Arab fight for their place in the world. It is the fight that Sunni Arabs must wage to be a member of the community of humanity, not a pox on humanity.

Sunni Arab complacency is acceptance by default. Their inaction against this pure evil is capitulation to pure evil.

The world's major powers do nothing. The Arab powers do nothing. The Imams do nothing. The wealthy financiers of terror do nothing. The social network providers do nothing. The madrassas do nothing. The Arab parents do nothing.

All act as if they are helpless. All act as if their principles prevent them from acting. ISIS has no principles except to kill, rape, enslave and murder. Complacency is capitulation, capitulation to pure evil. So be it. Welcome to the neighborhood.

I'm not religious but if I were, I'd conclude that this is the very definition of devil worshiping and Isis was lucifer's army. True evil incarnate.

Oh no! Another red line. Watch out, we are gonna be "gravely concerned".

First off nobody should be surprised that ISIS used chemical weapons. They will use whatever they can to kill those that oppose their cult. As to the US getting involved, I think not as the lead country. A conference with all the countries in the Middle East and Europe that are directly affected by this murderous organization is necessary and they need to take the lead with us in support to finally destroy this group and if possible bring the leaders to an international court. But if that can't be done killing them will do.

This currently is the Middle East's problem. Yes we have the lone wolf's in the US and Europe. A problem that they are all too willing to let the US deal with while they either watch or give minimum support to. It is time for the countries of the Middle East to do what is necessary. But unfortunately they won't. Perhaps if a few of their family members were raped, beheaded, drowned, blown-up or become of victim of mustard gas they will sing a different tune and actually get the courage to do something.

The Nazis, Stalinists, and Maoists butchered millions, ISIS if allowed to grow will most certainly do the same. And the overwhelming lives lost will be people from that region.

It is a very confusing part of the world a world where medieval thinking is still the way decisions are made and how people are treated.

“But Mr. Obama has said that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line that could force American action.”

First off, I am amazed that the President would again make this kind of assertion.

The previous episode regarding the Assad regime use of chemical weapons in Syrian was mostly an embarrassment. Absent the largely Russian brokered deal for giving up chemical weapons stocks, Obama would have been left with little room to recover badly bruised credibility. Further, Assad has certainly repeatedly violated the spirit of the so called agreement to forego the use of chemicals on the Syrian population -- without consequences.

ISIS has absolutely no scruples when it comes to horrific acts that make a mockery of international agreements regarding warfare -- most of which have been wantonly violated worldwide without effective sanctioning or prosecution since the war crimes trials following WW-II.

That ISIS would use chemical munitions, especially against non-Muslims is no surprise. Their having obtained them is another clearly grave matter. Apparent lack of credible verification days after the incident of the mortar fire on the Kurdish forces in Iraq, is disturbing given American capabilities on the ground.

The cogent issue is just what the Obama response will be upon verification, especially given the general ineffectiveness to date of the U.S. current effort disable and destroy ISIS.

I continue to support the President's reluctance to get into the "toppling of governments" business. Our ventures into the Iraq and Afghanistan speak to our countries limitations when it comes to our traditional, shock and awe, foreign policy gambit. I think we have reached the time where we have neither the troops nor the money to play national building chess. Now, this could all change with a Republican administration, where troop levels and deficits are mere speed bumps on the path of proving we are an exceptional nation.

Assad is a horrible guy, whom we never supported.
Saddam Hussein was also a horrible guy, who we once supported (against Iran).
The King of Saudi Arabia (whose name doesn't even matter) is a terrible guy who we still support.
All provided, or provide, a sort of terrible-smelling, toxic "glue" that held or holds the Middle East together since France and Britain drew the region's borders after WWI.
The borders drawn in the Middle East and Africa by European colonial rulers: A gift that just keeps on giving and giving, as does the European colonial tradition of exploiting native peoples to the hilt while giving them nothing in the way of democratic traditions.

Regardless of whether Saddam's stockpile that was moved to Syria, or Syria's own chemicals, most likely both, the use of chemical weapons further demonstrates the profound urgency in removing ISIS. Image if they gain access the nuclear weapons..The Islamic State has repeatedly proven itself to be renegade and unparalleled in its barbaric cruelty. I have no doubt they would use them. Unfortunately, bombing alone won't do it. Only a massive coalition army comprised of all civilized nations, who understand the existential treat these demented fanatics pose, will.

What is happening to people under ISIS is horrible.
My wife and I watch mostly Deutsche Well and France 24, which provide real news and analysis of the situation, unlike the lamestream media (ABC, CBC, CNN, FOX, NBC), so we actually know what is going on.
However, *I* will not be supporting any wars, or agreeing to pay more taxes, or donating to support more wounded warriors which the U.S. taxpayers refuse to support, or sending my sons or daughter to fight ISIS unless:
1) Europe, especially Germany, is fully in in terms of money and soldiers;
2) The U.S. Republican Party fully supports the U.S. commander-in-chief by an overwhelming margin, including voting to raise taxes to fund the new war.

ISIS arose out of the Syrian Civil war. The Syrian Civil war was triggered by the Arab Spring. ISIS in Libya arose out of the chaos of the Libyan Civil war. The Libyan Civil war was trigger by the Arab Spring. ISIS has spread from Syria into Northern Iraq because there was a vacuum there caused by the hapless Iraqi army. Turkey has held ISIS at its border. Assad and Gaddafi were firmly in place when Bush left. The Arab Spring came years after Bush left. Some, at the time, credited Obama with the Arab Spring via his Cairo Speech. Maybe. While it is true Obama helped picked the winner in Libya via military intervention, the resulting civil war and rise of ISIS can't be laid on Obama.

The blame for ISIS lays firmly with ISIS, they arose opportunistically to exploit the chaos of Civil War. History is loaded with examples of splinter groups exploiting civil war.

isis, isis, isis. Be VERY afraid. The press is feeding us nonstop isis, DT and "can't trust Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton". Do not trust the major media propaganda machine that would have us continue on the path of wealth inequality, anger, hate, fear, war and destruction. And girls/ladies raped by isis - do not come to the southern United States of America if you don't want to carry that cluster of "evil eggs from hell." No help here. The "christian"
war mongers must have poor human fodder for their war machine.

I seem to remember that Assad, who is the secular President of Syria had tried to tell the US last year that chemical attacks, which were attributed to him, and held over him as a cause for regime change, had been perpetrated by the Sunni Rebels in Syria.

At that time last year the drumbeat for war with Syria in order to take down, yes, another Secular leader in that temple of religious lunacy that is the Middle East, overwhelmed his protests.

Now the Kurds may have been attacked with chemicals like mustard gas, and the call is once again for the US to step up its action against ISIS as a result. My question is do we actually have any idea of who we really want to fight in the Middle East or is this just a bar fight written a large? It does seem that the as long as the US is willing to bloody itself in another idiotic war, the supporters of various war factions from America to Israel will be satisfied.

The only way that peace will come to the ME is if the United States can by sanctions or embargo or the threat of military force compel our ally Saudi Arabia to stop supporting ISIS activity, remind Turkey that it is a Nato member with obligations, and clamp down on the Israel Lobby, which constantly calls for more blood.

Why President Obama hasn't become angry enough with provocateur in chief Bibi Netanyahu to finally claw back our annual 3 billion dollars in military aid to his Israel, which cares only for its own interests is beyond me. War is not a natural condition!

If ISIS is using chemical weapons against the Kurds then the Kurds need to step up their retaliation. And the neighboring countries need to show some interest. There are plenty of countries in the region that can handle ISIS.......if they want to.

I think although ISIS showed unbelievable brutality and gained some military achievement but it is not that strong as it seems. It still exists, because there is not a strong political will to get rid of it. The world and local powers (US, Europe and Iran) who suffered or feel danger about it should work together to finish it up.

I wonder how American politicians think about their national interest?

1. To fight ISIS only
2. To remain more power in the region
3. To maintain new world order

If ISIS used Chemical against Kurdish what about Assad regime used Chemical against ISIS? Is he right to do so?

Obama's red lines are flimsy things. Why would he lift a finger to do anything about ISIS use of outlawed weapons when he gave Assad a pass. The U.S. has no credibility left whatever on issues like this thanks to this administration.

So how many people were killed in the chemical attack ? none, Chemical weapons do not result in external injuries, they only mess up internal system. When Assad used chemical weapons in Aug 2013 1500 were killed in hours. ISIS and Assad are both bad but there is propaganda war going on to make American forces fight on the ground.

Mr. Obama said the use of chemical weapons is a red line that could bring more forceful action? President Obama has said that once before. He did not follow through. I am a huge supporter of the President, but just how short term does he think citizen's memories are? I cannot understand why he would possibly make this statement again unless he truly means to follow through this time. If the chemical weapon use is verified, then it is boots on the ground, all out war yet again. If that comes to pass, may God have mercy on the entire planet.

Right now ISIS is not taking American lives. They are not a threat. ISIS is real threat in Europe, however. It makes sense the European countries should go in first. But if boots on the ground becomes inevitable then there should be equal troop commitments from all allies. But its always fascinating to read comments from Americans who believe the US is responsible for policing the world.

Let's worry about the American cops slaughtering people and the government spying on all Americans before we worry about Chemical weapons in Syria and ISIS.

Globally nations should mobilize forces under under its own flagin seekingpeace and stability

The influx of immigrants entering Europe can only increase in relation to the rise of Isis. Eligible immigrants need to be trained, armed and sent back to liberate their own countries from Isis. Otherwise Europe will be become dysfunctional with the inundation of millions of refugees.

While an internationally approved action against chemical weapon use in Syrian case could be contemplated and executed, what action beyond the current airstrikes or limited targeted offensives against the ISIS by the US and its allies could be thought of to prevent the ISIS from using such chemical weapons, or even from committing other atrocities that they are already doing? For, the ISIS is neither a state nor a civilised political entity which could be subjected to observing the international norms of conduct or follow any treaty rule. The ISIS being a common threat to the world community, warrants a concerted international action, not an action by the US alone, or by a group of nations only.

ISIS has proved to be more sophisticated, organized and deadly. The report that they have used chemical weapons has come as a rude shock. It is just matter of time that they use such weapons against people whom they consider infidels. Someone said, "It is my enemy who determines what weapon I should use". Since ISIS has proved many times that they are inhuman beasts, I think they deserve a harsher treatment now. All nations should contribute soldiers and the U.S. should take lead and finish off the ISIS as soon as possible. Let us not wait till ISIS lay their hands on nukes. Sooner the better.

Between this and the sexual assault/slavery AND the story about what they did to the American female aid worker there is no ambiguity about the need to exterminate these monsters. The issue is who should do it, and the answer is not us. If Muslims want to have one shred of dignity or credibility it's time for them to step up. It's not our job.

ISIS and Turkey are attacking the Kurds..makes you stop and think.

As to the use of chemical weapons by ISIS I am sure there will be those who argue that these poor Islamists have grievances against the west and as a result, anything they do including gasping their own people is our fault. Its not. These cruel theocrats enjoy killing. We need to face facts. They will only be stopped when the Muslim countries in the ME stand up to them but there in lies the problem. Many of those governments agree with many of the underpinning is ISIS cruelty. In fact Saudi Arabia beheads people in public. Mast year @ 250 were executed that way. They also enforce sharia law and treat "apostates and blasphemers" like murderers.

If it is true that ISIS is using chemical weapons,it is up to the world court to prosecute and judge these criminals. The USA can act as an investigator but not the judge, jury and executioner. The criminals of the Cheney-Bush administration have shown us how unwise that action is.

Please, not another quagmire. If anything, if we seriously join in the fight, this will be worse than anything thus far. Who do we attack? Who is ISIS? Boots on the ground is the excuse all that hate us have been waiting for, and another reason why Arab ally's don't have to join in the fight, which is their fight .

REALITY. this is dreadful news
but I dont know how this is any of my business.

This is an excellent example of why most of the announced presidential candidates would likely be disasters: no experience and no indication they possess knowledge of, understanding, or even interest in foreign policy beyond some focus group tested slogan. A very multi-polar world requires someone at the top with an understanding of nuance, of perspective, of history, of shades of grey, of the fact that the perfect can be the greatest enemy of the good.

The one Republican with the credentials, Jon Huntsman, was so marginalized by the party three years ago, that he is, quite unfortunately, not running this time. The Democrats can make a case for Biden, Clinton, and probably Webb having the credentials. (Specific policies are a separate issue.)

Try this as a thought experiment: picture your favorite candidate dealing with Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Bashir Assad, Ayatollah Khameini, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Then try to picture him or her dealing with non-state players such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, as well as whoever is the momentary leader of states in semi-civil war, such as Iraq and Nigeria. Finally, picture your candidate making alliances with these people and groups which, of necessity, will change from issue to issue, if not week to week.

Now, how confidant are you of your candidate?

Will we see any substantive foreign policy debate this election season? Doubtful. Slogans, yes. Substance, no. And, given what's out there, that's a truly scarey proposition.

ISIS is the most horrendous terrorist organization of modern times, for 2 reasons: Its brutality is as vicious, as barbaric as ever. It is spreading like wild fires. If we underestimate it, it will be at our peril. As long as al-Baghdadi is alive, its monstrous impact will continue to be the most disastrous blow to humanity.

al-Baghdadi is NOT a MUSLIM. He is the evil incarnate. He is as much a Muslim as David Koresh was a Christian.

We can't make Saudi leaders to declare that. If Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says so, if he hasn't already, without most Sunni leaders making such a statement, it will have very little if any impact. As of now, there is no equivalent Sunni religious leader who can persuade the Sunnis, as Khamenei can move the Shias. That's an unfortunate fact. Only the entire Saudi leadership could influence the Sunnis, closer to how Khamenei could, the Shias.

If a joint statement made by the Saudi King & Khamenei that al-Baghdadi is NOT A MUSLIM, it would do the job. But neither would join the other. Will John Kerry, or any other person(s) on earth, be able to "bend" both of them? For the sake of humanity, that ought to happen.

President Obama's underestimation of ISIS and his fumbles on Syria, yes, and on Iraq actually was the best gift al-Baghdadi got. And he is thriving, ISIS is flourishing, because of that. For the record, I am still an ardent supporter Obama, voted for him twice.

That region, Syria and Sunni Iraq, needs an international intervention similar to the one in Yugoslavia during the 90's. The humanitarian toll is unbearable: millions of Syrians displaced in their own country and outside, This human suffering needs to stop. The intervention force should set up very strong autonomic zones (Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite). Setting up these zones should take some time, but an end to the present situation should take place as soon possible. This a time for a large scale diplomacy followed by a military intervention.

ISIS is baiting the US for its pr, which will increase its size. Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come.

A concerted long term US strategy must be made, and followed through, with primary participation by all of our third party allies in that part of the world. They should have put their skin in the game, first, before us, since they are the most in imminent danger.

The US shouldn't always have to be the first to spend our lives.

Excellent reporting, Ms. Cooper. It's inherently difficult to see through the fog of war, but sometimes you can hear the choking sounds nonetheless. ISIL has zero regard for any lives outside of its members so it is no surprise it would engage in these despicable tactics, but as this article says we've struggled to confirm these Kurdish reports before. One can imagine how the president took the news that ISIL is potentially now using chemical weapons to assault its adversaries, i.e. everyone else. There are likely few international developments he'd like to learn of less than this. There are no good answers here (no matter what Lindsey Graham and other Republicans suggest) and there haven't been any in that area for a very long time.

ISIS needs to be forced into unconditional surrender. They take actions, every day, that words like unconscionable and horrific don't even begin to describe. They just need to be destroyed. There's no justification in waiting.

This is the same thing they said to try drum up support for a war in the Middle East. Dont fall for it Americans how in the world can a group of 30,000 scare a country like America.

What baffles me is that a few thousand terrorists cannot be wiped out by the "world's super powers and their allies". Put some boots on the ground, get tough and get in there and do away with this group, if that is really what the world wants. some days I have my doubts, because the military loves the real practice and the industry loves the money coming in.
What is it folks? genuine or is this another fake "war"?

Because this miserable band of rapists is a precipitate of our invasion of Iraq, we might be lured into believing it is our duty to "right our wrong" and to go in full force. Even in to Syria.

To the contrary it might argued be that because this is a complex struggle between Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, Arab, Alawite,Turk, Israeli, Russian and Iranian- multi-layered and overlapping interests, the U.S. should probably avoid sending over any more "help". We have done more harm than good already.

Both are reasonable arguments.

The bottom line is that there are no good options now. The administration of George W. Bush made a terrible miscalculation about how deep, complex, volatile, and OLD the animosities are over there. Mr. Obama has made the best out of an unsolvable disaster of war.

President Bush's lazy-minded loyalty to Al Malaki, Cheney and Rumsfeld put us here. The man had no business occupying the office of President of the most powerful military on the planet. So when you read about rape academies, mustard gas and burning pilots alive, and beheading westerners, please remember how we got here.

Make no mistake, however much JEB may want o blame Mr. Obama for the rise of ISIS, ultimately the President was handed an un-winnable theatre of war through a calamitous failure of foreign policy and common sense judgement by George W. Bush and company.

After the revelations of what happened to Kayla mueller and now chemical weapons, for gods sake, how much longer are we just going to sit? I am not in any way shape or form in favor of a new war, but enough is enough. We need to go in and take no prisoners. Pull out all of the stops and get the job done the way we know how.

"...use in Syria of chemical agents...could increase pressure on the Obama administration to intervene more forcefully in the war against the Islamic State."

The threat posed by ISIS may be one of the worse threats to humanity since Nazi Germany, at least, in terms of producing mass migration (the former Soviet Union as well as the current communist dictatorship that rules China and from whom we import billions of dollars of goods made in sweatshops were and are just as bad as ISIS. But neither produced, or has produced, the mass migration of refugees).

But how exactly will we the United States do this? From Turkey, that even though it is a NATO ally that is a completely unreliable ally? From Greece, the bankrupt country that is inundated with refugees, but which the European Union refuses to help? From warships stationed off the coast of Israel and Lebanon?

And whose sons and daughters will risk their lives...and die...to save the world from ISIS? Because even though the flood of refugees from the Middle East primarily affects Europe, you certainly won't see many European sons and daughters going to fight to defend mostly Middle Eastern Muslim populations. So why so WE Americans have to carry all the weight? We will have to partner with Russia and Iran.

And if our sons and daughters are going to pay with their blood to save Europe, the least Europe could do, and especially rich nations like Germany, is pay for the war. But what sacrifice will WE Americans at home make?

The President lacks any putative war powers in Syria or Iraq outside those he has arrogated. He must go to Congress before embroiling this country in yet another decade of wars in the Middle East.

REALITY: the campaigner in chief can not be expected to do what is best for america

The JV Team is using WMD's which either did not exist in Iraq or which we were told by this Administration were eliminated in Syria? Mildly interesting development.