A group of hackers from the Syrian Electronic Army hacked into Outbrain, a content recommendation service used by major news outlets.

The attack occurred on Thursday morning, and affected the Washington Post, Time, and CNN. The SEA tweeted that hackers were able to access the media companies through a vulnerability in Outbrain, a company that all three companies use. Certain articles on these new sites redirected readers to the Syrian Electronic Army's main website. The Washington Post reported that its readers were sent to the Arabic version of the SEA website. 

Outbrain was aware of the leak, and has since fixed the security breach, according to a blog post from the company. The affected companies have also corrected the security breach. 

"We've taken defensive measures, and at this time there are no other issues affecting the site," said Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, the Post's digital managing editor in an article printed by the Post on Thursday after the SEA attack. 

The Washington Post was targeted earlier in the week in a series of phishing attacks, by what the news organization believes to have been the SEA. The source of the attack sent emails to Post mailboxes that appeared to be from Post colleagues, which directed recipients to click a link, and provide log-in data, according to an article by the Post. The data would have presumably given the outsider access to the Post's computer network. 

The SEA is a pro-Assad group, independent of the regime, that targets Western and Arabic media outlets that it claims unfairly portray the Syrian conflict, according to the group's website. 

The SEA gained media attention when it infiltrated the Twitter account of BBC's weather service, changing weather predictions on the media organization's microblogging account. Further attention was given to the group after it hacked into the Associated Press's Twitter account in April of this year, and tweeted that there had been an explosion in the White House. This fake tweet caused the Dow Jones to drop by up to 140 points.   

The group of hackers has also infiltrated the BBC, the Financial Times, National Public Radio, as well as the Onion. 

Join the conversation about this story »

BEIRUT/AMMAN (Reuters) - Syrian activists accused President Bashar al-Assad's forces of launching a nerve gas attack that killed at least 213 [and as many as 755] people on Wednesday, in what would, if confirmed, be by far the worst reported use of poison gas in the two-year-old civil war.

Reuters was not able to verify the accounts independently and they were denied by Syrian state television, which said they were disseminated deliberately to distract a team of United Nations chemical weapons experts which arrived three days ago.

The U.N. team is inSyria investigating allegations that both rebels and army forces used poison gasin the past, one of the main disputes in international diplomacy over Syria.

Activists said rockets with chemical agents hit the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar before dawn.

A nurse at Douma Emergency Collection facility, Bayan Baker, said the death toll, as collated from medical centers in the suburbs east of Damascus, was 213.

"Many of the casualties are women and children. They arrived with their pupil dilated, cold limbs and foam in their mouths. The doctors say these are typical symptoms of nerve gas victims," the nurse said.

Extensive amateur video and photographs purporting to show victims appeared on the Internet. A video purportedly shot in the Kafr Batna neighborhood showed a room filled with morethan 90 bodies, many of them children and a few women and elderly men. Most of the bodies appeared ashen or pale but with no visible injuries. About a dozen were wrapped in blankets.

Other footage showed doctors treating people in makeshift clinics. One video showed the bodies of a dozen people lying on the floor of a clinic, with no visible wounds. The narrator in the video said they were all members of a single family. In a corridor outside lay another five bodies.

A photograph taken by activistsin Douma showed the bodies of at least 16 children and three adults, one wearing combat fatigues, laid at the floor of a room in a medical facility where bodies were collected.

Syrian state television quoted a source as saying there was "no truth whatsoever" to the reports.

Syria is one of just a handful of countries that are not parties to the international treaty that bans chemical weapons, and Western nations believe it has caches of undeclared mustard gas, sarin and VX nerve agents.

Assad's officials have said they would never use poison gas - if they had it - against Syrians. The United States and European allies believe Assad's forces used small amounts of sarin gasin attacks in the past, which Washington called a "red line" that justified international military aid for the rebels.

Assad's government has responded in the past with accusations that it was the rebels that used chemical weapons, which the rebels deny. Western countries say they do not believe the rebels have access to poison gas. Assad's main global ally Moscow says accusations on both sides must be investigated.

Khaled Omar of the opposition Local Council inAin Tarma said he saw at least 80 bodies at the Hajjah HospitalinAin Tarma and at a makeshift clinic at Tatbiqiya Schoolin the nearby district of Saqba.

"The attack took place at around 3:00 a.m. (0000 GMT / 8:00 p.m. Tuesday EDT). Most of those killed were in their homes," Omar said.

SURPRISING TIMING

The timing and location of the reported chemical weapons use - just three days after the team of U.N. chemical experts checked in to a Damascus hotel a few km (miles) to the east at the start of their mission - was surprising.

"Logically, it would make little sense for the Syrian government to employ chemical agents at such a time, particularly given the relatively close proximity of the targeted towns (to the U.N. team)," said Charles Lister, analysts at IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center.

"Nonetheless, the Ghouta region (where the attacks were reported) is well known for its opposition leanings. Jabhat al-Nusra has had a long-time presence there and the region has borne the brunt of sustained military pressure for months now," he said, referring to a hardline Sunni Islamist rebel group allied to al Qaeda.

"While it is clearly impossible to confirm the chemical weapons claim, it is clear from videos uploaded by reliable accounts that a large number of people have died."

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitoring group, said dozens of people were killed, including children, in fierce bombardment. It said Mouadamiya, southwest of the capital, came under the heaviest attack since the start of the two-year conflict.

The Observatory called on the U.N. experts and international organizations to visit the affected areas to ensure aid could be delivered and to "launch an investigation to determine who was responsible for the bombardment and hold them to account".

(Additional reporting by Erika Solomon in Beirut; Editing by Peter Graff)

Join the conversation about this story »

If reports of a chemical weapons attack in a rebel stronghold in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, Syria, are true, it may have been the deadliest in decades.

The attack is believed to have come from chemical weapons on rockets that hit the neighborhoods of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar just before dawn. One nurse told Reuters that the death toll was 213, but reports from rebel groups put the number at over 750. Estimates appear to be rising.

David Kenner of Foreign Policy writes that if the higher estimates are true, it would not only be the worst chemical weapons attack in past two years of warfare in Syria, but also the worst globally since Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 5,000 people with poison gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja during 1988.

For now, we don't know what's going on exactly. Bashar al Assad's Syrian government is denying the reports, with state television saying that reports of an attack are being put out by rebels to distract a team of United Nations chemical weapons experts in the Syrian capital. However, as Kenner notes, it's unclear if the team will be able to get to the site of the alleged attack— despite being just 15 minutes away, their movements are reportedly heavily restricted.

Whatever happened, it's being extensively documented online. Reddit users are collecting videos of the aftermath, and they are truly horrifying to watch — some appearing to show dozens of bodies of children lying lifeless on the floor.

The videos below show some men, women and children who were reportedly recovering from the attack. WARNING: The footage may be extremely upsetting for some viewers:

And another video allegedly showing children dying or recovering after the attack:

Join the conversation about this story »

Images and videos continue to trickle in from an alleged massive chemical weapons attack in a small Syrian city on the outskirts of Damascus. 

If confirmed, the attack comes as UN chemical weapons inspectors are in Syria to investigate claims by opposition forces of three chemical weapons attacks over the last year. The United States, Britain, and France all say they have determined that chemical weapons were used earlier this year by the Bashar al Assad regime.

With reports of as many as 1,300 dead, this would be the largest chemical weapons attack since Saddam Hussein killed roughly 5,000 in Kurdistan in northern Iraq 25 years ago.

But for all the troubling images, this YouTube video posted by Syrian activists depicting a young survivor of the attack maybe best captures the sheer senselessness of the violence.

Pale and trembling, a young girl is being comforted by the man holding the camera. Her eyes are red, and she repeatedly covers her face with her hands.

Over and over, she's saying: “I’m alive, I’m alive.”

DON'T MISS: Horrifying Images In Syria After What May Have Been The Worst Chemical Weapons Attack In Decades

Join the conversation about this story »

France is seeking a reaction with "force" if a massacre in Syria involving chemical weapons is confirmed, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Thursday, although he ruled out the use of ground troops.

"If it is proven, France's position is that there must be a reaction, a reaction that could take the form of a reaction with force," Fabius told BFM-TV.

"There are possibilities for responding," he said without elaborating.

The main Syrian opposition group claims that as many as 1,300 people were killed in a chemical weapons attack Wednesday on rebel areas near Damascus.

Videos distributed by activists, the authenticity of which could not immediately be verified, showed medics attending to suffocating children and hospitals being overwhelmed.

In June, Fabius had raised the possibility of using military force against chemical arms production centres after France confirmed that Damascus had resorted to such weapons.

But on Thursday the foreign minister said there was "no question" of sending in ground troops, adding "it's impossible."

If Wednesday's attack is confirmed, "I believe it cannot go without a reaction from those who believe in international legality," Fabius said.

"If the Security Council cannot take a decision, at that moment decisions must be taken in another way. How? I would not go further," he said.

UN Security Council members are seeking "clarity" on the suspected chemical weapons attack.

But diplomats said the council did not adopt a formal declaration because of opposition from Russia and China, which have for the last two years blocked any condemnation of their ally in Damascus.

"The Russians must assume their responsibilities," Fabius said.

"We are in a phase where it must be believed that the Security Council members are consistent. All said that chemical weapons should not be used. They all signed an international accord which bans their use, including the Russians," he said.

Join the conversation about this story »

If this week's reports from Syria are true, President Bashar al Assad has perpetrated the largest chemical weapons attack in 25 years against his own people in a village on the outskirts of Damascus.

The brazenness of the act would be startling. U.N. chemical weapons inspectors are currently on the ground in Syria, investigating claims of three other gas attacks in the last year. France, Britain, the United States, and Syrian opposition forces all say the previous attacks took place. 

French foreign minister Laurent Fabius has said that if the latest claims are substantiated, the French support responding with force. 

The office of Ban Ki-Moon, the U.N.'s Secretary General, just released a statement where he makes little effort to conceal his intent to get those weapons inspectors to the site of the last incident.

"A formal request is being sent by the United Nations to the Government of Syria in this regard," the statement reads. "He expects to receive a positive response without delay." 

Additionally, the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, on her 19th day on the job, is an expert on human rights who has long advocated an interventionist approach in the case of atrocities. She took to Twitter to address the attack yesterday:

— Samantha Power (@AmbassadorPower) August 21, 2013

During her senate confirmation, Power called the U.N. Security Council's failure to intervene in Syria a "disgrace that history will judge harshly." 

Here's the full statement from the U.N. Office of the Secretary General:

The Secretary-General remains deeply troubled by the reports of the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. The Secretary-General believes that the incidents reported yesterday need to be investigated without delay. Since yesterday he has been in touch with world leaders on the matter. He has instructed Under-Secretary-General Angela Kane to travel to Damascus.  Furthermore, senior UN officials have been in contact with the Syrian authorities since the first reports were received.

The Secretary-General takes positive note of yesterday’s meeting of the Security Council as well as the conclusions by the President of the Security Council supporting his intention to conduct a thorough, impartial and prompt investigation. 

The Secretary-General now calls for the Mission, presently in Damascus, to be granted permission and access to swiftly investigate the incident which occurred on the morning of 21August 2013. A formal request is being sent by the United Nations to the Government of Syria in this regard. He expects to receive a positive response without delay.

The Secretary-General reiterates his call for a cessation of hostilities so that humanitarian assistance can be urgently delivered.

SEE ALSO: Child Survivor Of Alleged Chemical Attack In Syria Shows The Immensity Of Lost Life

Join the conversation about this story »

Unconfirmed reports indicate the Syrian government may be using poisonous gas against rebels in the ongoing civil insurrection that has engulfed the Middle Eastern country.

Though these reports have yet to be verified by third-party inspectors, many experts say the videos and photographs from Syria showing dead and injured people would be difficult to fake. The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, however, has consistently denied all allegations of the use of poisonous gas or other chemical weapons.

Poisonous gas has a long, grim history of use in warfare. In the ancient Syrian city of Dura-Europos, the remains of about 20 soldiers from A.D. 256 were discovered by archaeologists in 1930. Recent chemical analysis revealed these soldiers were probably killed not by swords or spears, but by sulfur gases ignited by the invading Persian army. [The 10 Most Outrageous Military Experiments]

The use of poisonous gas and other chemical weapons was banned by the Geneva Protocol following World War I — sometimes referred to as "the chemists' war"— during which chlorine gas, tear gas (ethyl bromoacetate or chloroacetone), phosgene, mustard gas and other chemical agents were used by both sides.

Syria, however, is not a signatory to the U.N. Chemical Weapons Convention (which strengthened the Geneva Protocol), and in 2012 the Syrian government threatened to use chemical and biological weapons in case of an attack. Syria is widely recognized as having a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

Effects of nerve agents

Because the alleged poisonous gas attacks in Syria are unconfirmed, it can't be determined what type of poisonous gas (if any) is being used. However, Dr. Khaled al-Doumi, director of a medical center near the site of the alleged attack, told Al Jazeera, "Medically speaking, the symptoms indicate that poisoning was a result of phosphorous compounds that could be caused by organic insecticides or sarin gas."

Sarin gas is a man-made, lethal toxin with no color, taste or odor; it can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin or eyes. Sarin is a nerve agent that works on the central nervous system and prevents the body from "turning off" glands and muscles, so these are constantly stimulated. Even a small drop of sarin on the skin can cause someone to twitch and sweat profusely.

People exposed to large amounts of sarin quickly lose control over their bodily functions and, if not treated immediately, can fall into a coma or succumb to respiratory failure.

Organic insecticides, often referred to as organophosphates, also act on the nervous system in a way that's similar to sarin, causing overstimulation and neurological dysfunction. Death can come quickly, generally due to respiratory failure. (After the deaths of 23 children in India in July, officials blamed school lunches that were contaminated with organophosphate pesticide.)

Mustard gas stockpiles

According to the BBC, Syria also has large stockpiles of mustard gas, recognized as a poisonous gas since the 19th century. Also known as sulfur mustard, the compound is named for its distinctive mustard smell, which has also been compared to horseradish.

Mustard gas is a relatively slow-acting toxin, and symptoms of exposure may take up to 24 hours to develop. Skin exposure results in severe blisters; temporary blindness may result if the eyes were exposed. Inhalation can cause serious lung damage, and exposure to mustard gas can increase the risk of cancer.

There are a number of other chemical agents that could be used as poisonous gas, from chlorine gas (which was infamously used by the Germans with devastating effect in the Second Battle of Ypres during WWI) to 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate — sometimes called Agent 15, BZ or "Buzz"— an incapacitating nerve agent that causes stupor, confusion and hallucinations.

In January, Wired reported that Syrian government troops had used Agent 15 on the rebels, according to some U.S. diplomats, but those reports have not been confirmed. Many international observers believe it could be years before the extent of poisonous gas used in Syria — if any is used at all — can be verified.

Follow Marc Lallanilla on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook& Google+. Original article on LiveScience.

• Top 10 Animal Recruits in War
• Fight, Fight, Fight: The History of Human Aggression
• 7 Strange Cultural Facts About North Korea

SEE ALSO: RICIN: Here's What The Poison Sent To US Officials Can Do

Join the conversation about this story »

THE Arab street hates Barack Obama. Many angry Egyptians accuse him of secretly supporting the Islamists who ran the country until July. Many others (equally angry) accuse him of backing the generals who overthrew the Islamists. Both charges cannot be right. Indeed, neither is. Yet loathing of Mr Obama runs wide and deep in the Muslim world, though he came to office vowing to mend relations with it, after the hubris and blunders of his predecessor.

When you are the commander-in-chief of a superpower, people often assume you are more powerful than you really are. To many Islamists the Egyptian army's ousting of their leader, ex-President Muhammad Morsi, simply has to be America's handiwork. Islamist posters in Cairo depict Mr Obama as a wicked pharaoh, leading Egypt's military strongman, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, by a dog-leash. To such folk, evidence of American perfidy is all around: from comments by John Kerry, the secretary of state, that the army was merely "restoring democracy", to Mr Obama's reluctance to suspend military aid.

In contrast, to many Egyptians who back the generals, events have unmasked Mr Obama's warm words about Arab democracy as a plot to empower Islamists, with an eye to dividing and weakening their homeland. Pro-army posters depict Mr Obama as a terrorist sympathiser with a bin-Laden-style beard.

Back home in America, too, Mr Obama is denounced in stereo. How feckless this president is, thunders a cross-party chorus of congressmen and pundits, urging him to suspend military aid to Egypt, lest America be complicit in a moral disaster. But oh, how reckless this president is, counters a camp that favours Realpolitik. The realists, both Republican and Democrat, want Mr Obama to hold his nose and back Egypt's generals, to ensure stability on Israel's borders and help contain radical Islam.

Syria inspires similar cacophony in Washington. Foreign-policy grandees call Mr Obama rash for saying that Bashar Assad had to go without first figuring out who might replace him, and for vowing to act should the regime use chemical weapons: a "red line" tested afresh on August 21st by allegations of horrific gas attacks on civilians near Damascus (prompting cautious White House calls for a UN investigation). A rival, bipartisan camp calls Mr Obama weak and timorous for failing to arm Syria's rebels.

As noted earlier, these duelling critics cannot all be right. Lexington would go further. Anyone who accuses Mr Obama of picking winners in the Middle East, or urges him to do so, misunderstands the president. Mr Obama is not in the business of taking sides in foreign conflicts. He is profoundly cautious about wielding American power, and even about defending values that--when the going was easier--he hailed as universal.

In 2011, as the Arab spring reached Cairo, Mr Obama heaped praise on Egyptians for seeking "nothing less than genuine democracy". He quoted Martin Luther King and praised largely peaceful protests for "putting the lie" to the idea that justice is best gained through violence. He lauded the Egyptian army for refusing to fire on civilians. Two-and-a-half years later, events leave less room for presidential lyricism. On August 15th Mr Obama rebuked the same army for its brutishness, saying that Egyptians deserve better. Then he chided Egyptians for their conspiracy theories about him, such as his supposed support for both Mr Morsi and his foes. Blaming America will "do nothing" to build a peaceful, democratic, prosperous Egypt, he scolded.

Such chilly rationality will not placate Arabs whose blood is boiling. From Syria to Egypt and beyond, partisans yearn to crush old rivals or sectarian foes once and for all. Mr Obama's response is to dispatch envoys to preach the merits of negotiation and inclusion. On August 19th the defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, declared America's influence in Egypt "limited". General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, has warned against picking "one among many sides" in a Syrian war whose underlying causes cannot be resolved by American military force.

Not every crisis is a quagmire

Such coolness matches the mood of many Americans. Fewer than one in four claims to be following events in Egypt very closely. According to a new Economist/YouGov poll, only 12% think Mr Obama has a clear strategy for Egypt, but that will not cost his party many votes. Television images of Arabs slaughtering Arabs--even of children convulsing after alleged chemical attacks in Syria--have not stirred American viewers very much.

During the Balkan wars of the 1990s several mid-ranking officials resigned in protest at American inaction, notes Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think-tank. Mr Obama's hands-off approach to Syria, Egypt and elsewhere has not led to a similar walk-out. At the same time the president has bought himself credit in Congress and in Washington by embracing Israel more closely in his second term, and by letting Mr Kerry work on restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. As a result, Mr Obama is shielded from grumbling about Syria.

Memories of overreach in Iraq and Afghanistan also help explain the national mood of coolness towards the Muslim world. But lessons from history can be over-learned. Frederic Hof, a former Syria point-man at the State Department, now at the Atlantic Council, sees an "Iraq syndrome" within government, and a prevailing view that America will botch any intervention it tries. Yet air strikes might slow or halt some Syrian massacres.

Contrary to the wild accusations against him, Mr Obama is not the hidden hand behind the Middle East's tumult. In truth, he hates to take sides, fearing that any fresh entanglements may prove as bloody and costly as George W. Bush's. But sometimes sides should be taken. Detachment can also be a sin.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

Join the conversation about this story »

An international humanitarian organization working in Syria has reported that thousands of patients have been brought into Damascus hospitals suffering from "neurotoxic symptoms" after an alleged chemical attack days ago.

Doctors Without Borders, or Médecins Sans Frontières, has been collaborating with medical providers inside Syria since 2012, and provided drugs, medical equipment, and other support. According to a press release, three hospitals in Damascus reported receiving approximately 3,600 patients, 355 of which reportedly died.

The Syrian government has denied using chemical weapons, and has instead blamed rebel forces for the recent attack.

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Bart Janssens, MSF director of operations, in a press release. “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."

If confirmed, the alleged attack on three neighborhoods just before dawn on Aug. 21 — possibly killing more than 750 people — would be the worst chemical weapons attack since Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 5,000 with poison gas in 1988.

Horrifying video footage of victims suffering after the alleged attack has stoked international outrage, with many calling for a U.S.-led response.

“If, in fact, this was a deliberate use and attack by the Syrian government on its own people using chemical weapons, there may be another attack coming,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday. “A very quick assessment of what happened and whatever appropriate response should be made.”

As the U.N. investigates the attack, Hagel said, the Defense Department has been prepared "to provide a range of contingencies to the president."

SEE ALSO: Horrifying Images In Syria After What May Have Been The Worst Chemical Weapons Attack In Decades

Join the conversation about this story »

Following an apparent chemical weapons attack on a Syrian rebel stronghold, there are multiple reports that the U.S. is preparing for a potential military strike against Bashar al Assad's regime.

Most sources say that President Obama has not made a final decision on any strike, but that it would involve cruise missiles fired from ships in the Mediterranean. This option would not risk any U.S. lives, but send a clear message that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerated.

From Reuters:

The United States said it was realigning naval forces in the Mediterranean to give President Barack Obama the option for an armed strike on Syria and a senior U.N. official arrived in Damascus to seek access for inspectors to the gas attack site.

From the Associated Press:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel declined to discuss any specific force movements while saying that Obama had asked the Pentagon to prepare military options for Syria. U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.

From CBS News:

CBS News has learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces. We say "initial preparations" because such an attack won't happen until the president gives the green light.

One official suggested to NBC News that any strike would be limited in scope:

"If the president wants to send a message"— most likely with limited airstrikes against a few targets — "we're good at sending messages," one official said. But if the White House wants to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, "We're not able to do that" without a long-term military commitment, the official said.

Obama has previously warned Assad against crossing a "red line" on chemical weapons, saying it would be a "game-changer"toward his military approach to the conflict.

It has been reported that hospitals in Damascus were flooded with thousands of victims after this week's alleged attacks, with hundreds of victims alleged to have died.

Join the conversation about this story »

The U.S. is considering a possible strike against Syrian government forces in the wake of a deadly chemical attack, but the country's information minister has warned that such a move would have deadly consequences, YNetnews is reporting.

"A mass of flames will ignite the Middle East," said Omran al-Zoubi, Syria's information minister, in a television interview. He also said that American pressure was "a waste of time" and it would not stop Syria from fighting "against terror."

The Syrian government, which refers to the rebel fighters as terrorists, has said they have "proof" the rebels were behind the Aug. 21 chemical attack.

"We have never used chemical weapons in Syria, in any form whatsoever, be it liquid or gas," al-Zoubi told a Beirut-based television channel, according to AFP.

Damascus hospitals were flooded with thousands of patients after the reported attack that showed "neurotoxic symptoms," according to an international humanitarian organization.

The Pentagon has been planning possible contingencies for intervention as the U.N. continues to investigate the source of the chemical attack. Most believe any attack would be limited in scope.

From NBC News:

"If the president wants to send a message"— most likely with limited airstrikes against a few targets — "we're good at sending messages," one official said. But if the White House wants to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, "We're not able to do that" without a long-term military commitment, the official said.

The Navy has sent a fourth warship into the nearby Mediterranean Sea, according to AP. A cruise missile strike seems increasingly likely, as CBS News' Charlie Kaye tweeted Friday:

BREAKING. @CBSNews has learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a Cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces

— Charlie Kaye (@CharlieKayeCBS) August 23, 2013

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.

Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans' resolve not to get involved in another conflict in theMiddle East.

The results - and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June - suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad's regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war inIraq and Afghanistan.

Some foreign and U.S. officials - notably Republican Senator John McCain, whom Obama defeated for the presidency in 2008 - have called Obama too hesitant in deciding whether to act in Syria. But several Americans surveyed in this week's poll, including Charles Kohls, 68, a former U.S. military officer from Maryland, praised Obama's caution.

"The United States has become too much of the world's policeman and we have become involved in too many places that should be a United Nations realm, not ours," Kohls said in an interview. "I don't think we ought to" intervene in Syria.

Kohls said the possibility of a chemical attack did not alter his belief that the United Statesshould stay out of Syria, or any war for that matter.

CROSSING THE 'RED LINE'

Obama has called the suspected chemical attack near Damascus on Wednesday "an event of great concern" and directed U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate the allegations of chemical use as he weighs potential responses.

The president met with his national security advisers on Saturday but U.S. officials said he has not decided whether to intervene.

U.S. defense officials, meanwhile, have repositioned naval forces in the Mediterranean to give Obama the option for a missile strike on Assad's regime, which has been backed by Russia andChina.

Obama has been reluctant to intervene in the Syria war, where rebel forces opposed to Assad are made up of dozens of militant factions, some not friendly to the United States.

The president warned Syria's government last year that any attempt to deploy or use chemical or biological weapons would cross a "red line."

The White House said that Assad's military appeared to cross such a threshold in June, and responded to reports of Syrian troops using chemical weapons by agreeing to offer military aid to vetted groups of Syrian rebels.

It does not appear that any U.S. weapons have been delivered to rebels so far. As the war has escalated, Obama's administration has come under increasing pressure from various governments, including those in France and Israel, to respond more forcefully to what many have called an unfolding humanitarian and political crisis.

LIKE OBAMA, AMERICANS CAUTIOUS

However, Obama does not appear to be feeling much pressure over Syria from the American people.

In this week's Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,448 people, just 27 percent said they supported his decision to send arms to some Syrian rebels; 47 percent were opposed. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for each number.

About 11 percent said Obama should do more to intervene in Syria than sending arms to the rebels, while 89 percent said he should not help the rebels.

Obama is considering a range of options. The most popular option among Americans: not intervening in Syria at all. That option is backed by 37 percent of Americans, according to the poll.

Less popular options include air strikes to help the rebels (supported by 12 percent of Americans); imposing a "no-fly" zone over Syria that would ground Assad's air force (11 percent); funding a multi-national invasion of Syria (9 percent), and invading Syria with U.S. troops (4 percent).

Deborah Powell, 58, of California, said she initially opposed any involvement by the United States but now supports arming the rebels.

"I was against any involvement after watching a (television) program that said if we give (rebels) the weapons they could turn them against us, but I think now we need to give them the weapons," Powell said.

Asked what changed her mind, she said: "What's going on over there is terrible." However, Powell praised Obama's wariness toward getting the United States involved in another war.

Some Americans believe the use of chemical weapons has changed the game in Syria, and that the United States should get involved as long as other countries did, too.

Jonathan Adams, 56, of California, said that he was "happy that we didn't get involved from the start and I'm glad Obama was cautious. But I think we have gotten past the point of where we should've been involved in some way."

He said reports of chemical weapons use "went way past the line."

**To see the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll on whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria if chemical weapons are used there, go to http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM43/type/day/dates/20130531-current

(Editing by David Lindsey and David Storey)

SEE ALSO: Syrian Minister: The Middle East Will Burn If The US Attacks

Join the conversation about this story »

Disturbing images and videos from last week's alleged chemical attack in the Syrian civil war have radically upped the stakes for the outside world, creating new pressure to engage in some kind of intervention.

The White House is said to be confident that the claims of a chemical attack are in fact valid, and reportedly there have been preliminary plans/discussions about a possible strike on Syria.

This seems to have gotten the attention of Syrian President Assad.

According to CNN and other outlets, Syria has agreed to let inspectors onto the site of the alleged attack.

The Syrian government is blaming the chemical attack on the rebels, and the access to the site is apparently going to come immediately.

SEE ALSO: Syrian Minister: The Middle East Will Burn If The US Attacks

Join the conversation about this story »

The White House has "very little doubt" that the Assad regime used chemical weapons in an event that killed at least 100 people last week, and it has been working urgently all weekend to respond to what now has become an urgent situation. 

President Barack Obama met with his National Security Council on Saturday, and he also placed a call to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron. 

“Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident," a senior administration official said in a statement to multiple outlets.

Syria says it will allow U.N. inspectors to visit the site of last week's chemical attack next week — a possible buckle in the face of ramped-up U.S. pressure. 

The Syrian government has blamed the chemical attack on the rebels, but the White House says it happened on rebel-held territory and involved rockets to which the rebels do not have access. 

Obama has been criticized on his Syrian policy, stemming from an all-or-nothing comment last August that promised the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" that would "change [his] calculus." So far, he hasn't acted on that line. 

But this weekend has provided a seemingly new urgency for the White House. Obama met Saturday with his national security team, and meetings are expected to continue on Sunday.

The White House said that both Obama and Cameron were "deeply concerned" about the reports of chemical-weapon use by the Assad regime, and that they discussed a range of possible options for an international response. France also said Sunday that there is "no doubt" Damascus carried out the chemical attack.

Obama has ruled out putting any "boots on the ground" in the form of troops, but multiple reports on Saturday suggested that the U.S. was discussing the possibility of limited air strikes.

This was an option that Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), two of the most prominent supporters of intervention in the conflict, advocated in a statement on Sunday. 

"The United States must rally our friends and allies to take limited military actions in Syria that can change the balance of power on the ground and create conditions for a negotiated end to the conflict and an end to Assad's rule," Graham and McCain said.

"Using stand-off weapons, without boots on the ground, and at minimal risk to our men and women in uniform, we can significantly degrade Assad's air power and ballistic missile capabilities and help to establish and defend safe areas on the ground."

The senators added that the U.S. should provide "game-changing" weapons to the Syrian rebels. 

Join the conversation about this story »

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke cautiously Sunday about any possible Syrian intervention, warning that the two-year-old civil war was likely beyond U.S. capabilities to affect any meaningful change.

"I have no affection for Assad," Powell told Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation," while mentioning he knows the Syrian president and has personally dealt with him. "He's a pathological liar."

However, Powell said, "I am less sure of the resistance. What do they represent? Is it becoming even more radicalized with more al Qaeda coming in, and what would it look like if they prevailed and Assad went? I don't know."

Calls for U.S.-led intervention have intensified in recent days after horrifying video footage emerged of an alleged chemical attack on Aug. 21. A senior administration official harbored "very little doubt" the Assad regime was behind the attack, despite their denials.

"In both Egypt and Syria, America has to take a much more clever role," Powell said. "We shouldn't go around thinking that we can really make things happen. We can influence things and we can be ready to help people when problems have been resolved or one side has prevailed over the other."

"To think that we can change things immediately just because we're America, that's not necessarily the case," Powell said. "These are internal struggles."

His comments are in stark contrast to Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who both have called for "limited military actions ... that can change the balance of power."

In a joint statement from both Republicans, they said "the longer the conflict in Syria goes on, the worse and worse it gets and the more it spreads throughout the region."

A retired four-star general, Powell served as Secretary of State during the Bush administration from 2001-2005. His testimony to the United Nations in 2003 was instrumental in garnering international support for the Iraq war.

Many Americans oppose Syrian intervention even if there is confirmation that chemical weapons were used.

You can watch his full interview below:

SEE ALSO: SYRIAN MINISTER: The Middle East Will Burn If The US Attacks

Join the conversation about this story »

The U.S. is inching closer to a military strike against Syria.

Earlier this afternoon, Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a stern message to the Assad regime and its alleged use of chemical weapons. The response from everyone was the same: war drums!

More reports out this evening suggest that a strike is coming.

CBS News is reporting that Obama has ordered the release of a report that would justify military action. That report, according to "top advisors," would come in a matter of days.

Within The White House, there is no longer any disagreement over the necessity of using military force against Assad, according to Major Garrett of CBS News.

Fox News has confirmed that four U.S. Navy destroyers are being pre-positioned in the nearby Mediterranean Sea, and CNN is reporting were Obama to give the order, a strike could take place "within hours." 

Senior administration officials laid out to the Washington Post the plan Obama is weighing, which would be limited in scope. It would be designed to send a message to Assad, while also keeping the U.S. out of further involvement.

According to the report, the strike would "probably" not last longer than two days. The mission would involve striking targets that are not directly related to the Syrian government's purported arsenal of chemical weapons. 

The Post lays out the three conditions necessary for such strikes to occur:

...completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.

Calls for a U.S.-led intervention in the two-year-old civil war have intensified in recent days, after an alleged chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 which produced horrifying video of dead and injured — many of them children.

International human rights group Doctors Without Borders reported Damascus hospitals received approximately 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms," 355 of which reportedly died. The Syrian government has repeatedly blamed the rebels for the attack, although U.S. officials harbor "very little doubt" it was the Assad regime.

Despite reports of chemical weapons usage, many Americans are opposed to military action in Syria.

The White House ratcheted up the pressure on Monday, however, delivering some of its most terse rhetoric against the Assad regime.

"What we saw last week in Syria should shock the conscience of the world," Kerry said in a statement from the State Department. "This international norm cannot be violated without consequence."

SEE ALSO: COLIN POWELL: Syria Is An 'Internal Struggle' That Is Beyond US Capabilities

Join the conversation about this story »

There's a lot of ugly stuff today.

Emerging markets (India, Indonesia, Turkey, etc.) are getting crushed on all the standard emerging market worries.

Plus there's all the Syria stuff that seems to be having a financial market impact.

You can really see that in Mideast stock markets.

Dubai is getting simply demolished, as the stock market there is down 7%.

Saudi Arabia is down 3.5%.

Meanwhile, US futures are fading, with S&P futures off about .75%.

Join the conversation about this story »

President Obama is considering a strike on Syrian military targets involving sea-launched cruise missiles or possibly long-range bombers that would last no more than two days, according to senior administration officials and reported by Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.

The limited strike would seemingly be a response to allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people before dawn on August 21. Hundreds were killed and thousands suffered "neurotoxic symptoms."

The design of the potential attack implies sending a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad without becoming entrenched in the 29-month conflict.

On Monday U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said: "There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm [of chemical weapons use] cannot be violated without consequences."

Reuters reports that the West has told the opposition to expect a strike "within days." The opposition has denied the report.

The Post notes that the targets would not be directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal and would probably include key government buildings in the capital and perhaps airfields.

(On May 5 Israeli jets targeted the Syrian military's fortress on Qasioun Mountain, which overlooks the capital, in a strike that was seen as a message to Iran.)

The decision for the strikes is reportedly contingent on an intelligence assessment of Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack, consultation with allies and Congress, and a consideration of justification under international law.

Fox News confirmed that four U.S. Navy destroyers are being pre-positioned in the nearby Mediterranean Sea, and on Monday evening CNN reported that a strike could take place "within hours"were Obama to give the order.

Reuters claims Western states have warned #Syria opposition to expect strikes within days - would aim to prevent further CW use. #Damascus

— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) August 27, 2013

Here's a look, courtesy of the Institute for The Study of War, at the likely weapons that would be used in a cruise missile strike, namely Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM):

SEE ALSO: Horrifying Images In Syria After What May Have Been The Worst Chemical Weapons Attack In Decades

Join the conversation about this story »

LONDON (Reuters) - Any strike by the United States and its allies on Syria will probably aim to teach President Bashar al-Assad - and Iran - a lesson on the risks of defying the West, but not try to turn the tide of the civil war.

U.S. and European officials say a short, sharp attack - perhaps entirely with cruise missiles - is the preferred response to what they believe is Assad's responsibility for a chemical weapons attack on rebel-held areas last week.

If such a strike goes ahead, President Barack Obama's administration will have to select its targets with extreme care as it tries to deter not only Assad but also Syria's ally Iran over its nuclear program.

"The administration has to decide what its objective is - punishment to show that there is a price and to re-establish a deterrent, or to change the balance of power in Syria," said Dennis Ross, a top White House adviser on the Middle East until late 2011. "I suspect it will be geared towards the former."

NATO air strikes in 2011 helped to change the course of the Libyan civil war, allowing rebels to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, but Obama is unlikely to opt for something similar in Syria.

U.S. officials said the Pentagon has submitted a range of possible attack plans for Syria to the White House, and analysts believe the scope would be modest.

"I think it will happen but it will be minimal, just enough to show the world that we did something," said Hayat Alvi, lecturer in Middle Eastern studies at the U.S. Naval War College. "The broader goal is not to get the U.S. involved too deeply - and especially not to allow any boots on the ground."

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. military is ready to act immediately should Obama order action.

The United States and its allies were strengthening their forces in the region even before hundreds of people were killed in rebel-held suburbs of Damascus last Wednesday. Syria has blamed the rebels but Washington, London and Paris say they have little doubt it was a chemical strike by Assad's forces.

Without some action soon, officials worry that Assad will feel he can resort to chemical weapons again with impunity - a year after Obama declared their use a "red line" that, if crossed, would require strong action.

Some also fear inaction in Syria could cast doubt over other U.S. "red lines", encouraging Iran to pursue a nuclear program which Tehran says is peaceful but the United States and its allies including Israel believe aims to produce weapons.

Any failure to strike Syria could also prompt Israel to take matters into its own hands by attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, causing yet more upheaval in an already highly unstable region.

CHOOSING TARGETS

Choosing targets is fraught with danger. The most likely, officials say, would be Assad's command and control facilities, air defenses and any part of his chemical arsenal they believe can be attacked safely.

What must be avoided is any action that, while designed to punish the use of chemical weapons, perversely ends up releasing dangerous materials into the environment. Likewise if any technicians from Russia, a major arms supplier to Assad, were killed, this would inflame already troubled Western relations with Moscow.

Defense sources say U.S. commanders want overwhelming force and a robust regional coalition available to deter any Syrian retaliation. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Tuesday that last week's attack was a "crime against humanity" which should not go unanswered.

Current and former Western officials, including those directly involved in policy, say Syria's sophisticated air defenses and worries about the risk of casualties among allied aircrew meant the cruise missile strike was now most likely.

A "stand-off" attack could be launched from U.S. warships or aircraft firing missiles without entering Syrian airspace. The United States says it has raised the number of destroyers that carry cruise missiles in the Mediterranean to four.

Its most powerful ship in the region - the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman - left the Mediterranean on Aug, 18, passing south through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea, although it could still be within striking range.

Defense sources say Britain has kept an attack submarine in the Mediterranean for several months, allowing it to join any U.S.-led missile barrage, just as it did with Libya.

The French carrier Charles de Gaulle has just been declared operational after a refit. Currently in the Mediterranean port of Toulon, it could be off Syria within three days.

LEAST WORST OPTION

Most officials who talked to Reuters said the possibility of allied and civilian casualties was a top consideration.

"It's about the least worst option," said a European defense source on condition of anonymity. "No one wants the risk of pilots being captured or killed."

Manned aircraft could still be ultimately used - Israeli jets have already raided Syrian targets on several occasions, proving it is possible.

U.S. F-16 jets have remained in Jordan after an exercise earlier this year. The U.S. air force could also reinforce its Turkish airbase at Incirlik while B2 long-range bombers could fly from the continental United States, unseen by Syrian radar.

France retains Rafale and Mirage jets at a base in the United Arab Emirates. British, French and other aircraft could operate from bases in Cyprus, although the island's foreign minister said on Tuesday he did not expect Britain's Akrotiri base to play a major role in any strike.

Gulf and other regional allies might provide useful intelligence, Western officials said, although their direct involvement in initial strikes was seen unlikely. The main focus would be protecting them from any retaliation by Damascus.

Syria's conventional forces still pack considerable punch, experts say, including anti-ship missiles that could hit vessels nearby in the Mediterranean and conventional rockets that could hit neighboring countries including Israel.

Last year, Assad promised not to use chemical weapons within Syria's borders - but explicitly threatened foreign countries if they attempted to impose outside "regime change". Western officials believe Syria retains considerable stocks including VX gas, regarded as much more lethal than the sarin suspected to have been used in last week's attack near Damascus.

Such worries were a major factor in Turkey and Jordan requesting U.S. and NATO Patriot missile batteries now based along the border to shoot down enemy missiles.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick and David Alexander in Washington and John Irish in Paris; editing by David Stamp)

Join the conversation about this story »

Bill O'Reilly must think America is made up mostly of loons.

As Andrew Kirell of Mediaite points out, O'Reilly said yesterday during his show that bombing Syria was the only course of action left for America, and that any person in Congress unwilling to vote for that course of action must be a loon.

“Who’s going to vote against that besides the loons?” the Factor host asked Karl Rove, who appeared on the show. “It’s got to be done quickly. Bang, boom. And then let the chips fall where they may. But no more dead kids breathing poison gas.”

Consequently, targets might not actually include chemical weapons sites, and planners aren't even sure if the two days of proposed bombing will result in Assad's ouster.

Max Fisher of the Washington Post notes that the only thing less popular than Congress is Congress voting to attack Syria.

And it likely won't be "bang, boom ... done quickly," former Marine General James Mattis said last month at a conference in Aspen that escalated involvement in Syria by the U.S. military would lead to “a full-throated, very, very serious war.”

Watch O'Reilly talk about Syria:

SEE ALSO: US Marines and Syrian rebels may have more in common that you think

Join the conversation about this story »