People suffering from Napalm-like burns have been speaking of an attack in which a plane apparently dropped an incendiary bomb on students in Syria.
Video said to be from the town of Urum al Kubra, close to Aleppo, shows a man reported to be a school teacher, who says the students were attacked as they tried to escape from an attack nearby.
“The plane hit a residential area in Urum al Kubra,” he explains.
“We tried to get out quickly so we don’t get hurt, but it seems someone’s fate caught up with them today.
“A gathering of students formed, which is normal as the students needed to leave under these circumstances, and the plane hit us.”
The injuries were like those caused by Napalm, according to doctors
The video, posted on the internet, is said to have come from an account associated with a rebel group in Aleppo.
In another video filmed in the aftermath of the attack, a doctor reports seven deaths and 50 injuries – and says the burns resembled Napalm injuries.
However, the use of the substance has not been confirmed.
A BBC television crew who witnessed the bombing reported no shrapnel injuries and said the victims resembled “the walking dead”.
Napalm is not classified as an outlawed chemical weapon although it can cause devastating burn injuries.
UN chemical weapons inspectors will end their Syria mission by the weekend
Infamously used in the Vietnam War – as well as the Second World War – the jelly-like substance sticks to skin and burns at very high temperatures.
A United Nations convention prohibits using incendiary weapons against civilians, or against military targets located near civilian populations.
The pictures of the school attack emerged after MPs voted against military action over alleged chemical weapons gas attacks by the Syrian regime.
Some have described the outcome as a “humiliation” for the government and means the US may have to go ahead alone with any military strikes.
Speaking to Sky News, former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown said the vote had left him “ashamed” and said it was vital to act to stop attacks on innocent civilians.
The UK is “shrugging its shoulders” at the attack, says Paddy Ashdown
“In more than 50 years of trying to serve my country in one form or another, I don’t think I have ever felt more depressed this morning or more ashamed.
“I now am condemned to watch those children burn in that schoolhouse yesterday and be a country that shrugs its shoulders and says ‘nothing to do with me’.”
I personally think now it time for action, I don’t want War, but throwing that into a School, I am sorry, more will have to die to stop this, this is Nazism here, nothing more, nothing less, as a WORLD we must stop this. Russia, Iran, China and the rest, do the fucking right thing, for the love of God!
President Barack Obama may proceed with military action against Syria even without allied support, US officials have said.
But they stressed no final decision has been made on America’s response to the Syrian government’s alleged chemical weapons attack, which is said to have killed 1,300 people.
Veto-holding members of the United Nations are at odds over a draft Security Council resolution that would authorise “all necessary force” in response to the alleged gas attack.
The UK’s traditional role as America’s most reliable military ally was called into question when David Cameron became the first British prime minister in history to be blocked by MPs over the prospect of military action.
A chastened-looking PM, struggling to make himself heard over calls of “resign” from the opposition benches, told them “I get it” as he abandoned hopes of joining any US strike on Syria.
Mr Obama is under pressure to provide a legal rationale for military action
Speaking after the historic defeat, the White House said Mr Obama would decide on a response to chemical weapons use in Syria based on US interests, but that Washington would continue to consult with Britain.
British chancellor George Osborne acknowledged that the inability to commit British forces to any American-led operation against Assad would damage the special relationship between Westminster and Washington.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think there will be a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system, be that big, open and trading nation that I like us to be, or whether we turn our back on that.”
Sky’s Foreign Affairs Editor Tim Marshall said the relationship between Britain and the US was “bruised but not broken”. “I don’t think there’s a divorce on the cards, a bit of bickering perhaps,” he added.
David Cameron was blocked by MPs over the prospect of military action
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking on a trip to the Philippines, said: “It is the goal of President Obama and our government … whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort.”
America is mulling whether to strike Syria without UN backing despite some of the more hawkish figures in the US cautioning against military action.
Former president, George W Bush, told Fox News Mr Obama had a “tough choice to make” but would not be drawn on what he should do.
He added: “I was not a fan of Mr Assad. He’s an ally of Iran and has made mischief.”
Former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who helped spearhead US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: “There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation.”
A UN weapons expert at the site of an alleged chemical attack in Syria
He said, if anything, the US should be more concerned with Iran.
Earlier, top US officials spoke to key Democrat and Republican politicians for more than 90 minutes in a conference call to explain why they believe the Syrian regime was responsible for the suspected chemical attack.
They have been pressing Mr Obama to provide a legal rationale for military action, and to lay out a firm case linking President Bashar al Assad’s forces to the attack.
Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, a senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said after the briefing that “strong evidence of the Assad regime’s continued use of chemical warfare” merited a military response.
It remained to be seen whether any sceptics were swayed by the call, given the expectation that officials would hold back classified information to protect intelligence sources.
“The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons,” New York Rep Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said after the briefing.
But he said officials did not provide much new evidence of that.
“They said they have (intercepted) some discussions and some indications from a high-level official,” he said, and that they possess intelligence showing material being moved in advance of the attack.
France announced that its armed forces “have been put in position to respond” if President Francois Hollande decides on military action.
He does not need French parliamentary approval to launch military action that lasts less than four months.
Moscow and Beijing have both vetoed previous Western efforts to impose UN penalties on Syria.
China has also been keen to show it is not taking sides and has urged the Syrian government to talk to the opposition and meet demands for political change.
Mr Assad, who has denied using chemical weapons, vowed his country “will defend itself against any aggression”.
Mr Obama has ruled out putting American forces on the ground in Syria or setting up a no-fly zone over the country.
He said any US response would be limited in scope and aimed solely at punishing Mr Assad for deploying deadly gases, not at regime change.
The most likely military option would be Tomahawk cruise missile strikes from four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
A different spin on the Syrian issue just now, I will ask the Question, is Syrian being filled with Western supporters in terms of people with Guns, terrorists, with Western views? I think it is possible. In Libya I believe Western thinking people came in from the East and destabilized the entire country, Gaddafi went from being held head high through his country in support to being killed live on TV. I know friends from Libya and they said after Gaddafi died that is was the belief of many that Western controlled al Qaeda fighters, who were armed to the teeth by the West were to blame, the Libyan people, in the main loved Giddafi, so could it be possible foreign fighters came into that country to destabilise it?
Could the same be true in Syria? And could the end game be Iran? I think people with political knowledge will understand the question I am asking here, is Syria being destroyed, are we being lied to make Al Assad look like the bad guy? With the Media we have it would be difficult to be 100% with any answer.
Bashar Al Assad spoke to RT News, with a Russian reporter a few months back, here is a different standpoint from a different viewpoint
prayingforoneday 