BS: chemical weapons in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:23 AM

Ake, yes.
You were right about the Arab Spring.
I agree with you that the West should not get involved.

I do think we should act to deter the use of chemical weapons, even if we can not stop conventional killing.

I do not believe the West can be blamed for the sectarian slaughter in Mid East and Asia.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:08 AM

Jom - we haven't sold arms to Assad - not even "sniper rifles to practice with".

So far you have offered up no evidence whatsoever to support any claim, either by yourself or any of your selected and extremely biased bloggers, that the UK has sold weapons to Syria.

So far you have offered up no evidence whatsoever to support any claim that anything exported from Britain has cost the life of a single Syrian since Assad started this current crackdown in March 2011

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:03 AM

Jim....You are not making sense, do you think the people of Syria, Libya, and Egypt are in a better place now than before the "Arab Spring"?

I am a better Socialist than you Jim, I am aware of its faults as well as its virtues.
You are not a socialist, you are a dreamer.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:45 AM

Already done that one Keith - pity you didn't sort our your cut-'n-pastes a bit tidier this time - losing the will to live maybe?
All done and dusted on the other thread.
"Would we not be better to step back and let "evolution" take care of things"
WHAT!!!!
Let them lie back and enjoy being totrured and massacred!!
Socialist my arseum - now wonder we ended up with Tory Blair
You pair ever considered a double act now Laurel and Hardy are no longer with us?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:26 AM

Keith, I know you are a good person with the best of intentions, but does it really benefit the people of Syria, Libya, Egypt to rise up against the power of extreme Islam?
These countries now lie in ruins without order or justice and leaving the people in many case without the means to live.

Would we not be better to step back and let "evolution" take care of things
Perhaps Ed is right and we practice the dark arts in our own interests?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:16 AM

As conflict continues to rage in
Syria, millions of people are in
desperate need of assistance.
The UK has committed £400
million to provide support
including food, medical care
and relief items for over a
million people in Syria and the
region.
The results below for 'Support Inside
Syria' and for 'Support to the Region'
describe £223 million of UK
humanitarian aid already allocated to
partners responding to the crisis.
Allocations to partners of the additional
£177 million are currently being
finalised. Additional results will be
incorporated into this summary as new
allocations to partners are made.
SUPPORT INSIDESYRIA
The UK has provided £138 million of
assistance to help people affected by
the conflict across Syria, including in
opposition held and contested areas.
UK aid has provided food for over
156,000 people a month across Syria
through our partner the World Food
Programme (WFP).
UK funding has already delivered water
purification supplies and repairs to
water infrastructure benefiting over
900,000 people. Our partner UNICEF is
repairing water systems, trucking water
and dispensing water purification
tablets to provide clean drinking water
to Syrian families.
.
UK funding has helped the UN
strengthen security and humanitarian
coordination mechanisms inside Syria
through OCHA and UNDSS. In
addition, UK aid to WFP has enabled
the organisation to enhance its food
storage facilities and security
management procedures.
Through UNHCR and others the UK
has funded the supply of relief items
(such as cooking sets, blankets,
mattresses etc.) to over 305,000
persons affected by the violence. The
UK has also funded improvements to
buildings accommodating displaced
people. New funding to IOM will provide
an additional 65,000 displaced people
with essential relief items.
UK support to WHO will provide
vulnerable Syrians with essential
access to comprehensive health
services. WHO are also supporting
trauma systems, delivering essential
supplies and augmenting health
systems to respond to outbreaks of
diseases. Across Syria the UK has
already funded over 244,000 medical
consultations to critically injured and
sick people.
UK support through FAO will provide
poultry and vegetable seeds to 6,000
households. It will also instruct 240
community trainers to support Syrians
in improved farming methods.
KEY FACTS
6.8 million
People in need of humanitarian
assistance in Syria (UNHCR)
4.25 million
Internally Displaced Persons in Syria
(UNHCR)
2.1 million
Syrian refugees in neighboring
countries (UNHCR)
£400 million
Of which:
Syria: £138 million
already allocated to partners providing
humanitarian assistance inside Syria
Region: £162 million
Already allocated (£85) or in the final
stages of allocation to partners (£77)
in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq.
£100 million allocations to
partners currently being finalised for
Syria and the region
Note: Financial allocations and planned
results in this document are rounded,
indicative and subject to change.
Icon source: UN OCHA
"Where aid is getting through to hundreds
of thousands of people, it can be the
difference between life and death. The UK
has led the way in responding to this crisis
so far and we will continue to stand
alongside the Syrian people in their time of
need"
-Justine Greening, UK International Development

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:13 AM

a business and political technique - not an act of humanitarianism - nor an act of charity - that's left to Oxfam and Trocair to do that sort of thing.
Now it is a lie, because you have been shown.
Click on the link I just gave you and see where British aid is going.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:06 AM

What seems pjzzling is some "governments" seem to openly promote democracy, until people vote "the wrong way" and possibly against their countries economic interests.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:46 AM

"It all turned sour and bloody"

You are a worldly wise and well informed fellow Mr T.....surely you KNEW that it would end in tears, and in all probability it was orchestrated by people with an undemocratic agenda.

As I have said before, if a socialist revolution were to start in the UK containing armed anarchists(Islamists), it would be swiftly crushed by force.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:23 AM

"are you suggesting that we should not send any humanitarian aid just in case our motives are questioned"
Certainly not - I'm merely pointing out that is should be regarded for what it is, a business and political technique - not an act of humanitarianism - nor an act of charity - that's left to Oxfam and Trocair to do that sort of thing.
In the case of Syria, or any of the Arab Spring states we have had dealings with, any of the possible humanitarian fallout has been more than cancelled out by the fact that some of the carnage being 'relieved' has been caused by weapons and equipment sold by aid providing countries such as our own - and nothing in Keith's hastily-gathered cut-'n-paste contradicts the facts stated by those involved in providing foreign aid.
"What f**kin democratic rights??"
What indeed - I've been arguing excatly that - you've been arguing that it's OK to sell arms Assad because we "only sold him sniper rifles for his soldiers to practice with" before he turned them out on the streets of Homs
As you where corporal - oh, you already are!
Jim Carroll
"Jom" - there goes that typo again - magnificent - where did you think that one up?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:04 AM

Here is a "factsheet" about British aid to Syria.
Read it and foam Jim.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244583/DFID-Syria-Humanitarian-Programme-Summary.pdf

Now please put up all your evidence that the aid is not humanitarian.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 02:26 AM

Ah Jom - "AID AS IMPERIALISM" - are you suggesting that we should not send any humanitarian aid just in case our motives are questioned?

Odd that really because you were all for armed intervention and boots on the ground, why? So that in a couple of months you can jump into a thread and froth at the mouth in block capitals and all the colours of the rainbow about the big bad UK stealing Syrian Oil and crushing the democratic rights of the Syrian people (What f**kin democratic rights??).

This "Arab Spring" phenomenon - Tunisia; Egypt; Libya; Syria; Bahrain; Iran - all turned a bit sour and bloody - in not one single instance were the expectations of those who took part realised - why was there no "Arab Spring" in Iraq? Rhetorical question, there was no "Arab Spring" in Iraq because they were given their political freedom when they held the first free elections in the country's history in 2005 (7,000 candidates standing for 275 seats). In accordance with the country's constitution further elections were held in 2010 and the next shall be held in 2015.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 07:14 PM

Wiki.
Humanitarian Response[edit source]

USAID and other government agencies in US delivered nearly $385 million of aid items to Syria in 2012 and 2013. The United States is providing food aid, medical supplies, emergency and basic health care, shelter materials, clean water, hygiene education and supplies, and other relief supplies.[6] Islamic Relief has stocked 30 hospitals and sent hundreds of thousands of medical and food parcels.[7]
Iran has been exporting between 500 and 800 tonnes of flour daily, by sea and land, to Syria.[8]
Over 100 wounded Syrians have been treated in Israel by mid-2013.[9] The Israel Defense Forces grants special permits for Syrians who are critically injured to enter Israel and obtain the necessary medical treatment; the IDF escorts them to and from the hospital.[10] The majority of the injured Syrians have been sent to the Ziv Medical Center in Safed, where the director of the trauma center stated: "we don't know who we're treating, armed or not armed, wearing uniform or not wearing uniform. Because of the critical condition in which many of them arrive, we don't question who they are. It is irrelevant. They are patients and are treated with the best measures we have in the hospital. Everyone gets the same treatment".[10] The Israel Defense Forces also set up a field hospital along the border to help treat less threatening injuries.[9][11]
On 26 April 2013 a humanitarian convoy, inspired by Gaza Flotilla, departed from Turkey to Syria. Called Hayat (Life), it is set to deliver aid items to IDPs inside Syria and refugees in neighboring countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.[12]
The World Health Organization has reported that 35% of the country's hospitals are out of service and, depending upon the region, up to 70% of the health care professionals have fled. Cases of diarrhoea and hepatitis-A have increased by more than twofold since the beginning of the year. Due to the fighting the normal vaccination programs cannot be undertaken. The displaced refugees also may pose a risk to the countries to which they have fled.[13]
Financial Response[edit source]

Financial assistance provided in response to the Syria conflict is tracked by UNOCHA through the Financial Tracking Service (FTS). FTS is a global, real-time database which records all reported international humanitarian aid (including that for NGOs and the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement, bilateral aid, in-kind aid, and private donations). As at 18 September 2013 the top ten donors to Syria were: United States, European Commission, Kuwait, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Denmark. As at 18 September 2013, assistance provided to the Syria Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan (SHARP): January - December 2013 was USD661,049,938; with funding for the Syria Regional Refugee Response Plan (RRP): January - December 2013 being $1,278,253,343. [14]

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:59 PM

String.
The idea that
somehow both Britain and the US are sending emergency humanitarian aid but not weaponry
is ridiculous.
It is not ridiculous.
It is an easily verifiable fact.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:56 PM

It is easy to find details of Britain's world leading and world shaming humanitarian aid.

HOMEUPDATESCOUNTRIESDISASTERSTOPICSJOBSTRAINING

24 Sep 2013
UK Aid Syria response - 23 Sept 2013

REPORTfrom Department for International Development Published on 23 Sep 2013 —View Original
Print

Email
preview
Download PDF (818.33 KB)
As conflict continues to rage in Syria, millions of people are in desperate need of assistance. The UK has committed £400 million to provide support including food, medical care and relief items for over a million people in Syria and the region.

The results below for 'Support Inside Syria' and for 'Support to the Region' describe £223 million of UK humanitarian aid already allocated to partners responding to the crisis.

Allocations to partners of the additional £177 million are currently being finalised. Additional results will be incorporated into this summary as new allocations to partners are made.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 05:27 PM

"The aid we send to Syria is emergency humanitarian aid, not what Hayter meant moron."
And your denials without still producing a scrap of evidence indicates that you haven't the faintest idea of the murky world of politics you have appeared to dedicate your miserable existence to defending - moron yourself.
Without evidence (you have yet to produce a single scrap to back up your denials - that is all they are) the facts stand and are no substitute for anything that has been put before you.
You say British 'aid' is "humanitarian" - how do you know; who told you, Vince Cable maybe?
The Syrian people are dying and suffering from weapons sold to Assad by profiteering leeches - Britain among them
They have been blinded and gasping for breath by sarin developed by six years of supplies from Britain - not just Britain, but Russian as well, but we can only be answerable to anybody but our own.
You have the facts about aid from the horse's mouth - you know that Syrian aid is any different, where's your proof?
The denials you have rested your entire arguments on have never been enough and the more you repeat them, the more fanatically disturbing you expose yourself to be.
I've shown you mine - let's have a look at yours.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 04:06 PM

""Many people are gullible and believe the propaganda on the media which is being manipulated by those with vested interests in selling erroneous ideas""

Such propaganda, and biased media reporting exists from all sources (and sides) on this issue (and related ones), and many "on all sides" of these issues believe that their "good" team (let's call 'em the spots) only does right and the other "bad" team (let, s call 'em the stripes) is evil and always does wrong.

It is just hard to believe that based on such dubious information, people are "just so so sure" about the positions they seem to take and firmly hold.:)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:35 PM

Remember that Assad was actually tolerated by the US for many years. The idea that
somehow both Britain and the US are sending emergency humanitarian aid but not weaponry
is ridiculous. The arms merchant business is international in scope and involves many different countries.

The problem is that politicians are putting on a false face on this issue and misleading the public. Many people are gullible and believe the propaganda on the media which is being manipulated by those with vested interests in selling erroneous ideas. Arms merchants are companies such as G.E., Boeing, not to mention the insidious role of contractors in the Mid-east.

How can anyone speak with such authority on this issue when they don't really have the facts and quote journals and blogs that agree with their ideas?

All you have to do is follow the money and see who benefits from warlike rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:08 PM

The aid we send to Syria is emergency humanitarian aid, not what Hayter meant moron.
People are dying for lack of it.

Assad being only one of many.....who we do not sell weapons to.

Russia and China arm the likes of him.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 12:57 PM

Aid:
One of the most fascinating and accessible books I have read on Aid is 'Aid as Imperialism' published by Pelican books in the 1970s – the Author was Theresa Hayter. She was an employee of the World Development Institute and her book was financed by The World Bank
Her father was 1st Baronet William Hayter, Deputy Undersecretary of State to the Foreign Office, so her credentials were fairly impeccable and her opinions come with a fair amount of insider knowledge.
She wrote that Aid was never 'given', but was traded for political and economic favours.
It was only available on condition that the recipient did not overstep any political or economic boundaries, would show favour politically and economic to the donor nation, and it came with the agreement that the 'donor' would be a guaranteed trading partner – this included 'Aid' given to those suffering because of political or social upheaval (such as Arab Spring protests).
In other words, it was never giving for charitable or humanitarian considerations, but was an investment in the people concerned, a means of gaining some sort of political and/or economic control over them and getting a toe-hold into their countries – hence the title 'AID AS IMPERIALISM'.
It was never considered an act of generosity or charity – it was merely investment, and to those in the know, was never thought of as being anything more.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 11:55 AM

"But Britain sells weapons to neither side and aids the rebels Jim."
You can only make this Dalek claim by ignoring every scrap of evidence that this is exactly what they have done - sold weapons to whoever will buy them.
It is the third largest seller of weapons on this planet and its most lucrative sales are made to despots i conflict with their citizens - Assad being only one of many.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 11:44 AM

"Britain doesn't sell weapons". The arms dealers aren't civil dpservants, and the businesses they run aren't in public hands, so thats true enough. But the dealers are British often enough, and the goods they supply are often enough made in Britain. The essential truth is that this is an international trade, "globalised" to use current terminology. Bans and sanctions are evaded with the greatest of ease.

But what has any of this got to do with the point at issue? - how to prevent the war in Syria getting worse and wider, and is there anything that can be done to end it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 10:24 AM

McGrath, it was unjust of you to suggest that Britain is profiteering from this.
We only give, and what country gives more?

Independent 6th September.

"The Prime Minister today announced millions of additional UK aid to help victims of the civil war in Syria.

Much of the £52 million set aside will go towards medical training and equipment for civilians targeted by chemical attacks."

"Britain's new aid contribution brings the total amount of UK funding for assistance in Syria and neighbouring countries to £400 million."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 09:07 AM

No - of course not - they are every bit as bad as Britain.

But Britain sells weapons to neither side and aids the rebels Jim.
Russia is complicit in the butchery you claim to oppose.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 09:01 AM

"I would dispute your claims if it was within the scope of this thread."
None of your ****** business.
"Does anyone challenge or defend that?"
No - of course not - they are every bit as bad as Britain.
"By the way is that the Finian Cunningham who has a degree in Agricultural Chemistry? "
So what - where is that relevant to what he has written, which was equally covered in the clips provided from The Independent and The Guardian - and just about every newspaper throughout the world at the time - what's your point?
"you were against anybody taking action against Saddam Hussein"
Where was I that - a rhetorical question - I wasn't - he was a butcher, and unlike present company, I don't support butchers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 08:18 AM

"If you read what has been put up the report refers to chemical weapons sales to Syria"

If you are referring to the article by blogger Finian Cunningham it is an article in which he expresses his opinions it is not by any stretch of the imagination a factual report - please do not insult the intelligence of anyone on this forum by putting that article forward as such.

By the way is that the Finian Cunningham who has a degree in Agricultural Chemistry? That's something to do with fertilizer and herbicides isn't it? Does that make him an expert in handling and manufacturing chemical weapons? (Does according to yourself and mayomick)

Now let me see Jom - you were against anybody taking action against Saddam Hussein (A leader of a highly repressive, secular, Ba'athist {Nazi} regime who used chemical weapons on his own population) yet you castigate the world and it's uncle for not taking action against Bashar Al-Assad (A leader of a highly repressive, secular, Ba'athist {Nazi} regime who increasingly looks as though he ordered the use of chemical weapons on his own people). Now why one and not the other Jom? Demonstration of your own impartiality perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 08:08 AM

I would dispute your claims if it was within the scope of this thread.
Britain sells arms to neither side in Syria, so let's move on.

It is my understanding that Russia sells huge amounts of deadly armaments to Assad.
Does anyone challenge or defend that?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 07:54 AM

Not the point - Britain has been selling weapons to both sides thoughout all these conflicts - Libyan fighters and government troops were using British weapons, including heavy artillery shells, against each other in the conflict there
As was pointed out in a Panorama Special programme, the enormous stockpile of shells had been sold to Gadaffi by Britain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 07:32 AM

Britain supplies the rebels with non lethal equipment for free.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:44 AM

By the way - the "non-lethal military equipment includes protection from the chemical weapons sold to Assad over six years and it is directed at fighters, not civilians, who are the victims of these weapons.
McGrath
Cross posted
Right on again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:38 AM

There - that's more like it you pratt.
The point is that rather than attempting to stop the slaughter Britain is deliberately using the conflict as a market place to sell arms and equipment - it was only when the gassing took the conflict into a new realm that they have drawn back.
Assad has to be stopped, yet Britain has sold arms and chemical weapons to both sides of the conflict - in Assad's case, for over six years.
The UN should have intervened when the protests turned into a massacre, failing that happening, the West, who has acted as a long-term armourer and supporter of the Assad regime, has a duty to stop those massacres, not to take one side or the other - that would be just as much of a disaster.
Assad is a killer - a war criminal - and a customer for British chemoical components - his supporters have to be won over and not become an oppressed group to be terrorised as Assad's victims have for decades this is not going to happen with partisan foreign intervention.
McGrath of Harlow made the point excellently - nobody wants to see any of these countries taken over by the religious nutters who have become involved.
The priority is to stop the slaughter; when that happens, if we are going to have any influence in what happens next it is not by selling arms to whoever is on hand, as has been the case up to now, in Syria, Bahrain, Libya - and in future, any of the other non democratic regimes Britain treats as "valued customers"
The British Government has to be stopped from treating world conflicts and human rights abuses as Arms Trade opportunities - and you have to be stopped from attempting to prevent discussion on these facts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:27 AM

One way and another British arms dealers tend to facilitate supplies of weaponry to both sides in most conflicts. That's generally been the case for generations, and of course isn't a practice particularly limited to British arms dealers.

In fact international cooperation in this practice is an essential part of this profitable business, and is the way to get round the occasional restrictions imposed by national governments.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:01 AM

Yes.
Britain supplies non-lethal military equipment to moderate Syrian rebel forces.
It is no secret.
What is you objection Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 05:49 AM

STOP POLICING THESE THREADS OR I WILL REPORT YOU - YOU HAVE NO RIGHT WHATEVER TO CENSOR THESE DISCUSSIONS
If you read what has been put up the report refers to chemical weapons sales to Syria
"William Hague announced that his government would be sending protective gas masks abroad. Not to Bahraini civilians, but to Syria. Moreover, the British equipment to protect against toxic chemicals is not being sent to Syrian civilians, but to the foreign mercenaries fighting a covert war on behalf of Britain, the US and France and their Persian Gulf Arab allies to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. Consistent reports show that it is the Western-backed mercenaries in Syria who have been using chemical weapons against civilians to leverage their objective of terrorizing the population into relinquishing support for the Damascus government."
Answer the points in the article instead of trying to suppress them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 05:19 AM

Bahrain?
Is that part of Syria Jim?
If not, start another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 04:40 AM

Please stop insulting our intelligence and please stop insulting the British people by euating them with the behaviour of the Arms dealers and the politicians who are facilitating them.
These facts are known throughout the world and was reported widely

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-under-fire-for-selling-arms-to-bahrain-2218423.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/17/bahrain-crackdown-uk-arms-sales

This particular report comes from an Irish Times Journalist and is probably the most comprehensive.
It is particularly significant as Bahrain was and remains a solid customer for British arms.
At the time of these events Britain was shamed into withdrawing 13 licences for weapons, including chemical ones, yet when Cameron opened the huge arms fair month into the Arab Spring protests, Bahrain was one of its main targets.
Despite all that is taking place in the Middle East, Britain is still acting as a mjor armourer of repressive regimes there.
You are tone of the most critics of Middle Eastern Countries (apart from Israel) yet when it is suggested that they should not be provided with arms you leap to the defence of that foul trade because Britain is one of the main traders.
If we are to hope for any positive change in these regimes Britain and the world as a whole has to adopt a principled an human-rights conscious policy over who it sells arms to – so far it has refused to do so.
Don't you dare attempt to attempt to block discussion on these threads by preventing criticism of the major accomplices – Britain, the US, - all of them – they are acting in our name and I cannot imagine any greater insult to the British and American people than to suggest that these murderous sales have anything to do with being "British" or "American" – these are the acts of Arms dealers and their political facilitators and they drag all our names down into the shit.
If you have any proof that any of these events never happened or they are in any way distorted – feel free to offer it, otherwise say what you have to say to justify it.
You are not here to "carry out a serious discussion" – you are here in your self-appointed capacity as policeman attempting to prevent any criticism of Britain or Israel - that is all you do.
Don't dare tell me what is relevant and attempt to stop me saying what I have to say, the last thing this forum needs is an insane fanatic running round with his blue pencil attempting to censor these discussions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:17 AM

Well put Mr McGrath.

Nobody wants to address that question.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 02:58 AM

Jim, why your hate filled obsession against Britain?
What has that massive rant from Iran (Press TV) that you just pasted got to do with this thread about chemical weapons in Syria?
Iran is supplying Assad with everything they can and they even have fighters with him.
We should take no lectures from them.

We are trying to have a serious discussion about a serious issue.
Ride your tired old hobby horse somewhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:20 PM

The Syrian war started with peaceful demonstrations with people calling for democratic reforms. So did the Iranian revolution.

It is possible to speculate that armed military involvement by former colonial powers in Syria might have led to the existing regime being overthrown, and its replacement by a democratic regime. However it's as well to remember that that was what was argued in the case of Iraq - it was claimed that the end of Saddam's regime would be greeted as liberation, and that an Iraqi democracy would be established.

Is a repressive sectarian regime better than a repressive secularist regime?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:47 AM

And Syria is only one of the countries visiting Britain's Arms Shop
Jim Carroll
July, this year – as out of date as 8 weeks old – tut-tut
"BRITISH GOVT. ENCOURAGES CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE IN BAHRAIN, SYRIA
BY FINIAN CUNNINGHAM
Official data provided by the London-based Campaign Against the Arms Trade shows that the British government approves hundreds of export licenses for the supply of weapons to the Bahraini regime. Britain continues to approve of this trade with Bahrain even though it earlier said that it would suspend the supply of weapons when reports of repression emerged during 2011."
Little Sajida Faisal had only just come into this world. But five days after her birth, she was dead, killed by suffocation from tear gas. She died on 11 December, a Sunday, in 2011 in her family home in the Bahraini village of Belad al-Qadeem.
Her father later told how Bahraini riot police had been firing tear gas into the streets for several days without stop. The whole village was under a toxic cloud of chemical gas, and with military checkpoints everywhere, the residents of Belad al-Qadeem were effectively held hostage, forced to breathe in the deadly fumes.
The family tried their best to shield the baby from the smoke seeping into the home. Her mother dabbed Sajida's face with water and that of her older sister, three-year-old Sarah. But it was no good. Sajida's father said the newborn baby's skin began to turn blue and then she died. He managed to get past the checkpoints hemming in the village to rush the infant to the hospital. But it was too late. The doctor confirmed that the baby girl had died from suffocation. Even if she had survived, the doctor said the lack of oxygen would probably have left her brain-damaged.
Ever since that day, Sajida's family has been living with the pain of her horrible death. That pain is compounded because the Bahraini regime wrote in the official death certificate that the cause was bacterial meningitis." Of course, the regime is lying. To say "suffocation from tear gas fired by Bahraini police" would be admission of the crimes against humanity that the civilians of Bahrain have been subjected to, ever since they began protesting for the democratic overthrow of the Al Khalifa monarchy in mid-February 2011.
According to records kept by the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, over the past two years at least half of the total deaths caused by the Bahraini regime security forces have resulted from tear gas suffocation. The very young, elderly and infirmed are most at risk.
There is little doubt that the excessive use of toxic chemicals is a deliberate policy of repression. The repression is aimed at "collectively punishing" the civilian, mainly Shia, population who have steadfastly supported the pro-democracy movement against the unelected Sunni royal rulers. Typically, the riot police do not limit their deployment of tear gas to disperse protesting youths on the streets. Regime forces routinely fire inordinate numbers of canisters into surrounding streets, with the effect of saturating whole villages and districts of the capital, Manama, with toxic fumes. The following day, entire skip-loads are filled up with the empty gas canisters swept off the streets by residents.
But the misconduct of regime forces is even more sinister. In addition to indiscriminate blanketing of neighborhoods, there are reported incidents of police officers breaking windows or doors and firing gas canisters into homes.
The excessive use of toxic gas in civilian areas goes hand-in-hand with house raids by the regime. In the past two weeks, Bahraini police have stepped up warrant-less arrests against dozens of civilians in villages across the Persian Gulf island. The raids have been accompanied by even greater use of tear gas. This week, the latest victim of suffocation from the gas was Saeed Marzouq, 55, who died while regime forces raided his village of Diraz. The village is seen as particularly supportive of the Shia-led pro-democracy movement and has been subjected to intense repression.
Ironically, in this same week, the British foreign secretary William Hague announced that his government would be sending protective gas masks abroad. Not to Bahraini civilians, but to Syria. Moreover, the British equipment to protect against toxic chemicals is not being sent to Syrian civilians, but to the foreign mercenaries fighting a covert war on behalf of Britain, the US and France and their Persian Gulf Arab allies to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. Consistent reports show that it is the Western-backed mercenaries in Syria who have been using chemical weapons against civilians to leverage their objective of terrorizing the population into relinquishing support for the Damascus government.
n official Russian report last week concluded that the Western-backed militants are using unguided rockets crudely fitted with chemical warheads, including the deadly nerve agent Sarin. These weapons are banned under international law. Therefore, their use is a war crime.
Perversely, the British government is intending to send gas masks to al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups - whom the British claim to be pro-democracy rebels - even though the evidence is growing that it is these groups who are guilty of wielding chemical weapons. If that responsibility is proven, then that makes the British government and its other Western allies indictable for complicity in war crimes in Syria.
That would add to similar indictable crimes that the British government is already complicit in, in Bahrain. Fittingly, there is a logical pattern here. In Syria, the British government is supporting militants using chemical weapons to sabotage democracy, while in Bahrain the British government is supporting a regime that is also using chemical weapons to sabotage democracy, or at least efforts to
establish democracy.
The description of "tear gas" may sound legitimate, but in the case of pandemic use against civilians in Bahrain it is far from legitimate. Tear gas or CS gas is officially meant for sparing use to fend off rioting crowds. These gases are highly toxic when used at saturation levels and especially in enclosed places, such as homes. In practice, therefore, the way in which these toxic materials are used in Bahrain in civilian residences constitutes a chemical weapon of mass destruction. Such use is a violation of international laws banning the use of chemical weapons, which makes it a crime against humanity.
As in Syria, the British government stands accused of crimes against humanity from the use of chemical weapons in Bahrain. Official data provided by the London-based Campaign Against the Arms Trade shows that the British government approves hundreds of export licenses for the supply of weapons to the Bahraini regime. Britain continues to approve of this trade with Bahrain even though it earlier said that it would suspend the supply of weapons when reports of repression emerged
during 2011.
Among the hundreds of items of weaponry sold to Bahrain from Britain are the following: CS gas, riot-control irritants, smoke generators, smoke canisters, smoke ammunition, stun grenades, "toxins", and smoke grenades.
This trade with Bahrain is in spite of the stated British policy that it "does not supply weapons to countries where such arms could be used for internal repression".
A British parliamentary committee on arms control this week reported that Britain supplies weapons to 27 countries which its own foreign office has listed for concern over human rights. The top two recipients of British weapons in the list of 27 - comprising more than 90 percent of a $19 billion annual trade - are Israel and Saudi Arabia. These two regimes are indictable for war crimes and crimes against humanity and yet they are both armed to the teeth by Britain.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, Britain supplies among other tools of repression: armored cars, crowd-control ammunition, tear gas, smoke grenades and stun grenades. For more than two years, since March 2011, British-equipped Saudi forces have been present in Bahrain to shore up the Khalifa regime. Saudi military dressed as Bahraini riot police accompany Bahraini officers during their deadly raids on Shia villages where families are on a daily basis poisoned in their own homes. The probable fact is that little baby Sajida Faisal was killed by forces wielding toxic gas made in and sold by Britain. Her death along with dozens of innocent Bahrainis in a very real way originates from toxic political decisions made in London.
The criminal use of chemical weapons of mass destruction by irregular militants in Syria and by regular security forces in Bahrain has a common denominator: both are supported by the British government to kill democratic freedom.
FC/SS"
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/07/18/314453/britains-toxic-crimes-in-bahrain-syria/

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:07 AM

We have two men in court today charged with receiving terrorist training in Syria.
They were caught coming in through Dover with ammunition and training material.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 07:53 AM

Britain helped to arm Assad with chemical weapons.
No. Britain did not.
Britain supplies no war material to Syria.
You are thinking of Russia and China Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 07:13 AM

When you put forward a theory it is your burden to give evidence that it is so, ake. Your last post seems to be saying that a newspaper puts a theory forward, and unless there is evidence that it is so, then it is logical to believe it as such. Not a logical approach. There are many cases where people are led astray by such thinking. It reminds me of Astrology or similar exploits, not logical deductIon.

Maybe many have a favourite team or theory. But, mostly seeking for reasons to reinforce it-them seems to lead nowhere, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 06:19 AM

"I have seen nothing which contradicts that view."
So you have added Assad to the list of thugs you support, along with Brievik, and any homophobic thug moron wandering British parks.
This started as a peoples revolt against a terrorist regime - Assad, with the assistance of world inaction, turned it into a civil war, Britain helped to arm Assad with chemical weapons.
Inaction on the part of the west left the door open for extremist groups to walk in.
Britain and the world, having done (or not done) what it has to create this carnage, should now leave the Syrian people to pick upthe pieces - which we have helped to develop to he stage it now has - yeah right on!!!
For someone claiming to be a socialist you come over incredibly like a BNP brain-dead everytime to put finger to keyboard.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 02:59 AM

The Times newspaper, which supports "moderate" rebels, reported that large numbers of FSA fighters are joining the Jihadists.
At the start of this conflict, Assad announced that the rebellion was being orchestrated by terrorists backed by foreign interests.
I have seen nothing which contradicts that view.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:55 PM

AFP – A local leader of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was killed in clashes with other rebels in the Syrian province of Idlib on Sunday, a monitoring group said.

Abu Abdullah al-Libi, a local chief of the group, was killed along with 12 other fighters from the jihadist organisation, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

"He was killed in clashes with a group of rebel fighters near the town of Hazano," Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.

He said six people from Hazano were also reported killed on Sunday, but it was unclear if they were civilians or fighters participating in the clashes.

The town lies in northwestern Idlib province, large parts of which lie under control of the Syrian opposition.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch which has expanded into Syria, has clashed with other rebel groups elsewhere in the country in recent days.

Violence between the group and rebels affiliated with the mainstream Free Syrian Army broke out this week in the town of Azaz in northern Aleppo province close to the Turkish border.

Syrian rebel fighters initially welcomed the arrival of hardened jihadists affiliated with Al-Qaeda, but have turned against the hardline fighters in several places after abuses and disputes over tactics and ideology.

When ISIS announced it would expand into Syria, it initially said it planned to merge with an existing jihadist rebel force — the Al-Nusra Front.

But Nusra, which has pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri, rejected the merger and there were reports that it had clashed with ISIS in northeastern Hasakeh province on Saturday.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:53 PM

I'd suggest that it's far too early to judge how Obama's role will be judged. The way I indicated is the obvious way that his people will seek to spin it - and the crucial thing determining how far that takes is going to be what actually happens.

If the chemical weapons get eliminated, if there is a peace conference that leads to an end of the civil war, if a regime is established in Damascus which at least looks better - and if, as seems quite on the cards, there is a rapprochement with Iran...

We tend to read back into history without always appreciating how events were initially seen. Things we think of as masterstrokes by politicians were often seen at the time as catastrophic blunders. And vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:06 PM

"are the very same people who are slaughtering civilian men, women and children in Nairobi"
Two places at once - that's clever! -or maybe all Muslims are all the same?
You have evidence that the opposition to Assad are all extremists and we should just let them get on with it I suppose?
Who knows - they may all be gay so you can claim two birds with one stone
Jim Carroll

From last week's Times
NO DOUNTS, BUT ASSAD CAN CARRY ON KILLING
Anthony Lord
Commentary
The Syrian war's mid-term future and the survival of the Assad regime has been decided as much by the timing of yesterday's UN report into the chemical attack in Damascus as by its contents.
Though stopping short of decisively laying blame for the attack on the regime, in its every detail the report suggests beyond reasonable doubt that sarin nerve agent was used and that the regime was responsible. Yet had the finding been released in time to influence parliamentary debate on Britain's intervention — itself a fulcrum event that shaped President Obama's hesitation in launching strikes— punitive military action might have already occurred.
The report's timing has instead dealt a new hand to every player at the diplomatic table, though at the expense of Syrian civilians.
President Assad's survival has been guaranteed, for the while at least, and he can continue to wage war using the same conventional weapons that have killed the vast majority of the 100,000 dead so far.
Russia, Iran and China can feel relief that their ally—whose continued tenure of power is now a default necessity by which to implement the Geneva deal—has bounced back in strength.
In the meantime, Israel, America and Europe, deeply worried as much by the possibility that Syrian chemical weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic radicals as that they may be used again by the regime, may now address those concerns.
The strength of wording in the Security Council resolution being drafted to back the Geneva plan will decide the strategies of each of these players. What it will not influence, though, is the emerging strategic threat posed by thousands of al-Qaeda-linked militants in the country, possibly the greatest conglomeration of radical militants since Afghanistan in the Taleban era.
Nor is it likely to affect the fate of Syria's population, who will continue to face the ravages of war, the rockets, missiles and bullets that allow them to be killed each day in the conventional way.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 07:03 PM

The "West" is giving support to the moderate rebels who are currently battling the jihadists as well as Assad. Ake lives in his own fantasy world.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:43 PM

Rather that see what you say as a conspiracy, Akenation, MO, it is a simplistic assessment of complex scenarios in different situations.I do not see a lot of logic in pulling all these unique situations under one unbrella theory.I see no compelling evidence of a linkage, beyond your opinion.

History is full of many ups and downs where big politicalal change evolves from citizen uprisings, regardless of who lends a helping hand and the geography (or religion) involved.Lasting political change rarely takes considerable time where roots for such change are shallow. Unpredictable events should be expected, as is chaos and u-turns.