BS: chemical weapons in Syria

Subject: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Airymouse
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 04:43 PM

I have a friend who is a well-known biochemist. I told him that I was puzzled by the need to determine whether or not the recent attack in Syria was an attack using chemical weapons. I asked him if he could think of anything other than chemical weapons, or a neutron warhead, that could cause the death of a great many people within minutes without trauma. He was stumped. Aljezeera quotes a British representative to the U.N. as saying that the probability of the opposition carrying out an "attack of this scope is vanishing to near zero." So my questions are if it wasn't Assad who did it, who else could have done it; and if it wasn't chemical warfare, what could it have been?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 05:17 PM

A nightmareish black propaganda exercise, perhaps organised by Al Qaeda, designed to get effective foreign military support in overthrowing the Secular Assad regime is being suggested.

It doesn't sound too likely. On the other hand for the Assad regime to have done this would make no sense at all. Nothing whatsoever to gain, and everything to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 05:20 PM

The Russians agree with your assessment McGofH, but then they support Assad:

Materials implicating Syrian govt in chemical attack prepared before incident – Russia

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 05:25 PM

If the "West" is going to intervene they better make bloody sure they know who did it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 09:43 PM

Not really my "assessment", bodad. Where the truth lies is beyond me to make any judgement. There are two theories, and both of them seem equally hard to believe. It would be extraordinarily difficult to organise an operation like this by an element of the opposition, and at the same time it is hardly believable that Assad's people could have carried out something potentially so damaging to their interests, with no discernible advantage to them.

It's true enough that the Russians support Assad's regime, but equally true that statements by Hague (and others) reflect fixed hostility to it.

The one thing that appears clear is that there are some very unpleasant and untrustworthy people on both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 10:06 PM

Here's the real deal...

Ain't no party in Syria that I'd trust any further than I could throw them... Don't pick sides... Just disable their WMDs and call it a day... I'd hate to have the guns we gave someone one day being fired at us... Remember this : We trained and armed the Taliban...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:24 AM

I agree with Mr McGrath, I doubt that the Islamist elements amongst the "rebels" would intentionally carry out such an attack, and it seems inconceivable that the regime would do so under the present circumstances....the "war" being won, inspectors on the ground, and the effect on world opinion.

I though perhaps, if the rebel forces had a cache of chemical weapons, taken at an earlier date and concealed in the area now under conflict, the cache may have been hit in the "sustained barrage" of conventional shelling.

Does that seem plausible?

Whatever happens, the worst possible option would be strikes by the West.......Remember IRAQ?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:10 AM

As long as 'intelligence' comes from the US, we know it will be to the benefit of the US and its geopolitical plans. The US cannot be trusted. It killed its own kids to invade Iraq over Bush, Wolfowitz and Cheney's WMDs and that was nowt but lies. No thank you Mr Obama. You're just another mouthpiece for The New American Century.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:36 AM

In order for us to remain in the war business, we need an enemy.

NO MORE GODDAMN WARS!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:52 AM

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 08:41 AM

The alternative is to sit back and watch as countless numbers of innocent people are gassed to death.

The world has a responsibility to protect.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 08:56 AM

The last party on Earth who would have done it would be Assad's people, since they had nothing to gain by doing it, and everything to lose by doing it.

Therefore, it is more than reasonable to conclude that it was a false flag operation carried out either by someone in the opposition forces or a covert operation by the people who wish to have an excuse to invade Syria and bring about regime change there....namely the USA, Israel, and their respective allies in the West.

The "alternative" to intervention is to stay the hell out of there and avoid turning the Syrian civil war into another western-backed takeover of a once-independent Muslim nation and another Iraq/Afghanistan-style disaster...only with far more dangerous possible consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 09:08 AM

No need for conpiracy theories.
Assad claims rebels did it and claims to have found rebel chemical stocks.
I do not find that incredible.
I find it more credible that Assad's people did it to discourage their enemies, secure in the knowledge that everyone looked the other way when gas was used previously.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Airymouse
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM

I think it is now clear that the cause of the deaths and illnesses was chemical weapons, but Akenaton's idea that it may have involved the unintentional hit of a cache of such weapons hidden by the rebel forces seems plausible to me. Indeed, I have heard it said that a strike on a stockpile of such weapons might release, rather than destroy, the chemical agents. I also see that it important that the U.S. remember the moral of Aesop's fable about the boy who cried "wolf". We should remember that the Maine was blown up from the inside out and that the Lusitania was carrying weapons. More recently, there is the Gulf of Tonkin and the hunt in Iraq for nuclear weapons (none found), which turned in to the hunt for any sort of weapon of mass destruction (none found), which turned in to the hunt for biological weapons (none found), which turned in to a hunt for a deck of cards.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 12:20 PM

I don't think China and Russia would stand idly by while their ally was being attacked from the West.

They learned the folly of that in Libya.

Military weapons are not now the only ones in the locker.

The West wants turmoil in the Middle East at the present time, the Russians and Chinese want stability. Its all about economics.

I do think that the "Arab Spring" was encouraged and aided by the West, in full knowledge of the human catastrophe that was to follow.
Anyone with a modicum of sense knew that Western style "democracy" was impossible.

"Democracy", even our delusion of democracy cannot be transplanted.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 12:35 PM

If Obama was an agent for The New American Century he certainly is having a difficult time showing it... He has done everything but what the neo-cons want him to do...

Seems that he is going out of his way to keep US out of new wars...

The challenge here for the US, as well as all the colonial superpowers, is to find ways of supporting their former "client nations" without arming them or holding wars in their countries...

Obama is trying to find the right mix here...

Ain't no magic wands here, people...

You can hate Obama for various reasons but he has been pretty consistent with his foreign policy, which BTW for the righties here, ain't responsible for the Arab Spring any more than it is responsible for the sun coming up in the morning and setting at night...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 12:48 PM

I agree Bobert, I think Mr Obama has been most unwilling to be involved in Syria and Libya.

Unfortunately the Middle East Crisis seems to be being used as a weapon domestically AND internationally.

Our Mr Hague is a politician to keep an eye on, an ambitious warmonger on the political "make"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

Strange how few contributions to this thread.
The circumstances and the outcome could be extremely serious, yet no one appears to be overly concerned.

The media here is pushing for "targeted strikes" against military installations by long range ballistic missiles, as the use of aircraft is deemed too risky......I don't think that was printed with any irony intended.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:41 PM

akenaten's suggestion does have the merit that if it's possible that it could have happened that way, it doesn't sound implausible, unlike the other two which I mentioned. The question is whether an accidental hit on a store of chemical weapons in the course of a bombardment could have these consequences. In principle it should be possible for the inspectors to determine that, and whether it appears to have happened.

Such a store could either be one set up by rebels, or possibly a previously existing government storage facility.

And there is a real danger that even if such an accidental explosion was the cause, there are people, in Syria and elsewhere, who positively want to see outside military engagement escalated, as a way to achieve political objectives.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 07:00 PM

To clarify, "accidental explosion" in this context means a conventional ( and intentional) explosion, if it had an unintended consequence of dispersing a store of toxic chemicals.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: kendall
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 07:55 PM

Mark my words, our war mongers will get us into another un winable war. That 39 billion the Halliburton made over there is probably gone by now.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Songwronger
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 10:45 PM

Obama is Muslim, hence his reluctance to attack Muslim countries. He picks off Believers here and there with his drones, but the leaders of the Muslim world know he has to put on SOME show for the home crowd.

I just hope he refrains from involving the U.S. military in a major new war. It's the one good thing he's done.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 07:36 AM

HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. That uprising in Syria is a battle between Shiites and Sunnis. They both hate us, we can not win and he knows it.
We armed the Taliban, remember?

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That's easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for their lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works in any country." (Hermann Goering)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 07:38 AM

Anyone who knows anything knows that any Muslim who embraces another religion is automatically marked for assassination. He's still alive.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 01:39 PM

"Anyone who knows anything knows that any Muslim who embraces another religion is automatically marked for assassination"
The only reference I can find to this is un the Ultra-Right 'Muslim Watch- web-page - maybe I've missed something.
Do you have any evidence to show that this is the case?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 05:22 PM

Whether or not Mr Obama is a Muslim, is of little or no importance.
As far as I can see the US is preparing its people for an illegal attack on Syria.
Mr Kerry has just been on TV building the case for military strikes, before the inspectors have produced any conclusions.....it all smells strongly of IRAQ.
They seem to be building their case on the belief that only the Assad regime has the capability to deliver the weapons to their target, they ignore the point that it would be completely against the regimes interests to provoke retaliation from the West, or the idea that the weapons may already have been in the hands of the "rebels" before being detonated by a conventional explosive device.

Kerry's rhetoric was strong and warlike, but the hypocrisy of America's support for the military coup in Egypt after the massacre of hundreds of civilians just a couple of weeks ago, cannot be concealed.

Get out on the streets people, like we did before Iraq, but this time don't trust the lying bastards.

Subject: BS: Obama + Syria Intervention = Impeachment
From: Songwronger
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 10:21 PM

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria...

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was taken Aug.19-23, the very same week that horrific reports emerged strongly suggesting that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, potentially killing hundreds or even thousands of civilians....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

We're seeing the same BS justifications for war in Syria that we've seen before, in other wars. But no one is buying the lies this time. Obama's whole administration has been built on lies, but this would be a lie too far. He will be impeached if he attacks Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 11:42 PM

Polls say that the majority of US citizens are against intervention in Syria - which means the US will probably get involved. After the Sandy Hook shootings, the majority of US citizens were for background checks when purchasing guns and that didn't influence governmental policy either ....

Secretary Kerry's hypocrisy is hard to stomach. In his speech re Syria he talked about the Syrian government's need for transparency, accountability, and a "moral compass." None of these things are evident in the US drone strike program the Obama administration has been conducting. Before the US starts lecturing other countries on what they should be doing, it should get its own house in order first. Otherwise, it doesn't have an ethical leg to stand on, and Kerry's speech comes off as jingoistic chest thumping. Physician, heal thyself seems appropriate here.

More likely, it'll be "Well, here's another fine mess you've got us into, Ollie." (with deep and abiding respect for Laurel and Hardy's acute understanding of US foreign policy)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Songwronger
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 12:00 AM

No. Obama will be impeached.

The country is tired of his endless race-baiting, his failed economics, his trampling of the constitution.

Unless his NSA spy program bears fruit (dirty secrets to be used against congress), he will be shat out like the thing he is.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 04:32 AM

(Drift ~~ in interests of accuracy)

GUEST ~~ it was Ollie to Stan, not vice versa, who always said "Another NICE mess you've got me into". That "Fine" is one of the common misquotations, exacerbated by the fact that one of their early shorts was for some reason titled "Another Fine Mess" (1930).

~M~

Apologies for such a drift on a thread on a very serious topic. But, as ever, accuracy matters.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 05:46 AM

Those postulating that one side or the other would never do this or that assume that both sides have got and can exercise full control of those fighting on their behalf - this is a mistake because, put as simply as possible, they don't exercise anything like that degree of control.

A hit by an artillery or rocket barrage on a rebel chemical weapons storage site? Doubtful, because chemical and biological munitions are normally stored unarmed, the weaponised agents are only filled into the warheads, shells and mortar rounds immediately prior to use (Remember the 45 minute claim? That is what that was all about) - How do you destroy chemical or biological agents? Extreme heat - very few things get more extreme in temperature than being at the centre of a high explosive detonation - the weaponised agents would be destroyed if their storage vessels were ruptured.

Everybody is going on about this latest attack as being the first - It is not I believe that it is the fourth reported instance - the reason the UN weapons inspectors are in the country is because they have a mandate to inspect the sites of the first three attacks, not this latest one.

To answer the question posed by the opening post:

"I asked him if he could think of anything other than chemical weapons, or a neutron warhead, that could cause the death of a great many people within minutes without trauma."

1: Indirect concussive blast or shock wave
2: Asphyxiation caused by an explosion and fireball robbing a space of oxygen.

Both of the above were noted to have occurred in cellars during the allied bombing attack on Hamburg in 1943. The bodies found did not bear a mark on them.

It will be interesting to know what chemical or biological agent was used, if it proves to be VX then there will be some extremely red
faces around, as in that part of the world VX could only have come from one source - Iraq.

If the Syrian Government is responsible and it is decided to mount a targeted response, then do whatever it takes to assassinate Assad himself - the ensuing leadership squabble should impede any activities of the pro-government side. But better by far just to stay clear of it, we would be damned either way, it is a no-win situation. It is their fight so let them get on with it - or better still let Russia and China step up to the mark and end it - but there is about as much chance of that happening as there are of pigs flying.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 07:07 AM

I would think it likely that an attempt to assassinate Assad could well have the reverse effect, and rather than impeding military activities could serve to escalate them, even if it disrupted them.

I cannot see how any plausible military intervention could have any significant effect in reducing civilian suffering in Syria, rather than the reverse (as happened in Iraq). Basically it would be a political gesture for internal domestic purposes. Public relations.

The same sequence of events seems to be operating as in the build up to the Iraq War. Demands for inspection, followed by the claim that inspection is inadequate, followed by escalation before the inspection has been carried through, and a rush to war.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 07:09 AM

Surely, the Syrian and all other similar civil conflicts that go out of control are problems the UNITED NATIONS should be called upon to bring to and end, not individual nations. I was under the impression that was the "raison d`etre" of the U.N.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 07:47 AM

Part of the problem that gets in the way of any United Nations role is what happened with Libya. The Russians and Chinese went along with a restrained Security Council resolutiion about preventing civilian casualties, and then it was used as a cover for military involvement to escalate the war and bring regime change. (Essentially the same thing that had happened in the case of Iraq.)

Even if the outcome in Libya was a good one - and that word "if" is the crucial one, the regime that operates in Libya is decidedly dodgy, and some consequences in other places, such as Mali have been disastrous - the results in the Security Council have not been at all good. They mean that virtually any restraining resolution is out of the question, because of fear that it will be used in the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 08:18 AM

It's just been announced that UN attempts to inspect for traces of chemical weapon use have been abandoned because of five days of obstructive delays and sniper fire.
Pity Syria has no oil resources worth speaking of - if they had, the US and their cronies would have been in there like rats up drainpipes "keeping the world safe for democracy!!"
".....Muslim who embraces another religion is automatically marked for assassination"
Seems we cleared up the question of whether defectors to the Muslim religion face assassination!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 08:34 AM

"Surely, the Syrian and all other similar civil conflicts that go out of control are problems the UNITED NATIONS should be called upon to bring to and end, not individual nations. I was under the impression that was the "raison d`etre" of the U.N." - John from Kemsing

The only means the UNITED NATIONS has at its beck and call to bring anything to an end is the verbosity of its members representatives. The United Nations is a talking shop, nothing more, nothing less.

So far they can talk about it all they like, the veto power of Russia and China blocks any good that the UN might have been able to do, not surprising that really as both of those states do not want to set uncomfortable precedents as they may wish to attack sections of their own populations before too long - (Sorry what was that you said? - Oh yes, Chechnya, Dagestan and Tibet I had forgotten all about them).

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 08:36 AM

Cleared up? DId you bother to even look???



Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ردة‎ riddah, literally means: "relapse" or "regress" but usually translates to "apostasy", or ارتداد irtidād) is commonly defined in Islam as the rejection in word or deed of one's former religion (apostasy) by a person who was previously a follower of Islam. Islamic scholarship differs on its punishment, ranging from execution – based on an interpretation of certain hadiths – to no punishment at all as long as they do not rebel against the Islamic society or religion.[1] The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment until repentance, at least for adult men of sound mind.[2][3][4] Several contemporary Muslim scholars, including influential Islamic reformers have rejected this, arguing for religious freedom instead.[3][5][6][7] Converts from Islam to Christianity have likewise criticized the traditional position.[8] According to Islamic law apostasy is identified by a list of actions such as conversion to another religion, denying the existence of God, rejecting the prophets, mocking God or the prophets, idol worship, rejecting the sharia, or permitting behavior that is forbidden by the sharia, such as adultery or the eating of forbidden foods or drinking of alcoholic beverages.[9][10]


"Undeniably, the traditional position of Muslim scholars and jurists has been that apostasy [riddah] is punishable by death. The longstanding problem of the traditional position, as held by Classical jurists or scholars, can be explained and excused as not being able to see apostasy, an issue of pure freedom of faith and conscience, separate from treason against the community or the state. However, the accumulated experience over the history in terms of abuse of this position about apostasy even against Muslims as well as the changed context of a globally-connected, pluralistic society should help us appreciate the contemporary challenges in light of the Qur'anic norms and the Prophetic legacy. In this context, while the classical misunderstanding about this issue of apostasy is excusable, the position of some of the well-known contemporary scholars is not.

Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi (commonly known as Maulana Maududi), the late founder and leader of Jamaat-e-Islami and a leading independent, revivalist Islamic personality of 20th century, is frequently referred to for his ardent argument for capital punishment for apostasy. He argued that there is a broad agreement of the leading jurists on this issue. He claims:

"To copy the consecutive writings of all the lawyers from the first to the fourteenth century A.H. would make our discussion very long. Yet we cannot avoid mentioning that however much the four Schools of Law may differ among themselves regarding the various aspects of this problem, in any case all four Schools without doubt agree on the point that the punishment of the apostate is execution." [The Punishment of the Apostate According to Islamic Law]"



http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/Mawdudi/index.htm

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 08:48 AM

Ah Bruce, that can't be true - that must be more of that ultra right wing, Islamophobic product of the Zionist cabal that we all know controls the press, the internet, international finance and the US government.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 08:49 AM

"Did you bother to even look???"
Did you - or did you only look where it suited you?
Jim Carroll

From "The Holy Bible"

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
    Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
    You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
    Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
    1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
    2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
    If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication
    A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
    Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
    They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets
    If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
    But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.
    1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

    2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Death for Blasphemy
    One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Kill False Prophets
    1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

    2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

Infidels and Gays Should Die
    So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle
    For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.' (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)

Kill People for Working on the Sabbath
    The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

________________________________________

2) God's Murders for Stupid Reasons:

Kill Brats
    From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

God Kills the Curious
    And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us?   (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)

Killed by a Lion
    Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)

Killing the Good Samaritan
    The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals.
    When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. (2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)

________________________________________

3) Murdering Children

Kill Sons of Sinners
    Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

God Will Kill Children
    The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

Kill Men, Women, and Children
    "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

God Kills all the First Born of Egypt
    And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

Kill Old Men and Young Women
    "You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
    (Note that after God promises the Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts kicked by them in the next chapter. So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful God.)

God Will Kill the Children of Sinners
    If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

More Rape and Baby Killing
    Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

________________________________________

4) Miscellaneous Murders

More of Samson's Murders
    (The Lord saves Sampson from standing trial for 30 murders and arson by allowing him to kill 1000 more men.) When he reached Lehi, and the Philistines came shouting to meet him, the spirit of the Lord came upon him: the ropes around his arms become as flax that is consumed by fire and the bonds melted away from his hands. Near him was the fresh jawbone of an ass; he reached out, grasped it, and with it killed a thousand men. (Judges 15:14-15 NAB)

Peter Kills Two People
    There was also a man named Ananias who, with his wife, Sapphira, sold some property. He brought part of the money to the apostles, but he claimed it was the full amount. His wife had agreed to this deception. Then Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart? You lied to the Holy Spirit, and you kept some of the money for yourself. The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was yours to give away. How could you do a thing like this? You weren't lying to us but to God." As soon as Ananias heard these words, he fell to the floor and died. Everyone who heard about it was terrified. Then some young men wrapped him in a sheet and took him out and buried him. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, "Was this the price you and your husband received for your land?" "Yes," she replied, "that was the price." And Peter said, "How could the two of you even think of doing a thing like this – conspiring together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Just outside that door are the young men who buried your husband, and they will carry you out, too." Instantly, she fell to the floor and died. When the young men came in and saw that she was dead, they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear gripped the entire church and all others who heard what had happened.   (Acts 5:1-11 NLT)

Mass Murder
    This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'   (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

You Have to Kill
    Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

The Danites Kill the Next Town
    But the territory of the Danites was too small for them; so the Danites marched up and attacked Leshem, which they captured and put to the sword. Once they had taken possession of Lesham, they renamed the settlement after their ancestor Dan. (Joshua 19:47 NAB)

God Kills Some More
    Then the LORD said to me, "Even if Moses and Samuel stood before me pleading for these people, I wouldn't help them. Away with them! Get them out of my sight! And if they say to you, 'But where can we go?' tell them, 'This is what the LORD says: Those who are destined for death, to death; those who are destined for war, to war; those who are destined for famine, to famine; those who are destined for captivity, to captivity.' "I will send four kinds of destroyers against them," says the LORD. "I will send the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, the vultures to devour, and the wild animals to finish up what is left. Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth." (Jeremiah 15:1-4 NLT)

God Promises More Killing
    I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)

The Angel of Death
    My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out. (Exodus 23:23 NAB)

Destruction of Ai
    Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid or discouraged. Take the entire army and attack Ai, for I have given to you the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land. You will destroy them as you destroyed Jericho and its king. But this time you may keep the captured goods and the cattle for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city." So Joshua and the army of Israel set out to attack Ai. Joshua chose thirty thousand fighting men and sent them out at night with these orders: "Hide in ambush close behind the city and be ready for action. When our main army attacks, the men of Ai will come out to fight as they did before, and we will run away from them. We will let them chase us until they have all left the city. For they will say, 'The Israelites are running away from us as they did before.' Then you will jump up from your ambush and take possession of the city, for the LORD your God will give it to you. Set the city on fire, as the LORD has commanded. You have your orders." So they left that night and lay in ambush between Bethel and the west side of Ai. But Joshua remained among the people in the camp that night.
    Early the next morning Joshua roused his men and started toward Ai, accompanied by the leaders of Israel. They camped on the north side of Ai, with a valley between them and the city. That night Joshua sent five thousand men to lie in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city. So they stationed the main army north of the city and the ambush west of the city. Joshua himself spent that night in the valley. When the king of Ai saw the Israelites across the valley, he and all his army hurriedly went out early the next morning and attacked the Israelites at a place overlooking the Jordan Valley. But he didn't realize there was an ambush behind the city. Joshua and the Israelite army fled toward the wilderness as though they were badly beaten, and all the men in the city were called out to chase after them. In this way, they were lured away from the city. There was not a man left in Ai or Bethel who did not chase after the Israelites, and the city was left wide open.
    Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Point your spear toward Ai, for I will give you the city." Joshua did as he was commanded. As soon as Joshua gave the signal, the men in ambush jumped up and poured into the city. They quickly captured it and set it on fire. When the men of Ai looked behind them, smoke from the city was filling the sky, and they had nowhere to go. For the Israelites who had fled in the direction of the wilderness now turned on their pursuers. When Joshua and the other Israelites saw that the ambush had succeeded and that smoke was rising from the city, they turned and attacked the men of Ai. Then the Israelites who were inside the city came out and started killing the enemy from the rear. So the men of Ai were caught in a trap, and all of them died. Not a single person survived or escaped. Only the king of Ai was taken alive and brought to Joshua.
    When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day – twelve thousand in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed. Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves, as the LORD had commanded Joshua. So Ai became a permanent mound of ruins, desolate to this very day. Joshua hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset the Israelites took down the body and threw it in front of the city gate. They piled a great heap of stones over him that can still be seen today. (Joshua 8:1-29 NLT)

Killing at Jericho
    When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

God Kills an Extended Family
    "You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made other gods and have made me furious with your gold calves. And since you have turned your back on me, I will bring disaster on your dynasty and kill all your sons, slave or free alike. I will burn up your royal dynasty as one burns up trash until it is all gone. I, the LORD, vow that the members of your family who die in the city will be eaten by dogs, and those who die in the field will be eaten by vultures.'" Then Ahijah said to Jeroboam's wife, "Go on home, and when you enter the city, the child will die. All Israel will mourn for him and bury him. He is the only member of your family who will have a proper burial, for this child is the only good thing that the LORD, the God of Israel, sees in the entire family of Jeroboam. And the LORD will raise up a king over Israel who will destroy the family of Jeroboam. This will happen today, even now! Then the LORD will shake Israel like a reed whipped about in a stream. He will uproot the people of Israel from this good land that he gave their ancestors and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, for they have angered the LORD by worshiping Asherah poles. He will abandon Israel because Jeroboam sinned and made all of Israel sin along with him." (1 Kings 14:9-16 NLT)

Mass Murder
    The men of Israel withdrew through the territory of the Benjaminites, putting to the sword the inhabitants of the city, the livestock, and all they chanced upon. Moreover they destroyed by fire all the cities they came upon. (Judges 20:48 NAB)

The Angel of Death
    That night the angel of the Lord went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. Early the next morning, there they were, all the corpuses of the dead. (2 Kings 19:35 NAB)

Kill Your Neighbors
    (Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)

Kill the Family of Sinners
    And Joshua said to Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession to him; and tell me now what thou hast done, hide it not from me. And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done. When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them, and behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it." [Note that the sin is not looting, but failing to give the loot to the treasury of the Lord.] "So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent, and behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it. And they took them from the midst of the tent, and brought them to Joshua, and to all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD. And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them to the valley of Achor. And Joshua said, why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. And they raised over him a great heap of stones to this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger: wherefore the name of that place was called the valley of Achor to this day. (Joshua 7:19-26 Webster's Bible)

Kill Followers of Other Religions
    While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)

Murder
    At the customary time for offering the evening sacrifice, Elijah the prophet walked up to the altar and prayed, "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prove today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant. Prove that I have done all this at your command. O LORD, answer me! Answer me so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God and that you have brought them back to yourself." Immediately the fire of the LORD flashed down from heaven and burned up the young bull, the wood, the stones, and the dust. It even licked up all the water in the ditch! And when the people saw it, they fell on their faces and cried out, "The LORD is God! The LORD is God!" Then Elijah commanded, "Seize all the prophets of Baal. Don't let a single one escape!" So the people seized them all, and Elijah took them down to the Kishon Valley and killed them there. (1 Kings 18:36-40 NLT)

Kill All of Babylon
    "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction".   (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

Micah Kills a Whole Town
    Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob.Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT) (Note that God approves of this slaughter in verse 6.)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 08:55 AM

Essentially the same attitude towards apostasy, and even towards heresy has held within Christianity, and plenty of examples of it happening. The point isn't whether historical approval for it can't be readily found, but whether it is what consistently happens here and now.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 08:55 AM

Right on cue comes the ol' biblical false equivalence argument.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 09:28 AM

I didn't even mention the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 09:31 AM

If you note the time of the posts you will see that mine was not in reference to yours.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 10:27 AM

"but whether it is what consistently happens here and now."
Exactly - I knew dozens of lapsed Muslims in London - and not one of them had been assassinated, not even once.
This forum is rapidly being infested by phobes who will use any thread to give vent to their particular brand of phobia - murdered British soldiers, besieged Arabs, massacred refugees... you name it.
It really is time...
Outraged from Tunbridge Wells

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 11:06 AM

Some numbers to ponder on the support for the killing of apostates in various Muslim countries. Note the absence of countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Syria etc. in the polling data.

Pew: 64% of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support death penalty for leaving Islam



"This loathsome term [Islamophobia] is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics."
-Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, Muslim, Ex-Cleric.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 12:35 PM

A loathsome term for a loathsome thing. Here's a story about an example of it in the town where I live:
Harlow mosque hit by arson attack

The "mosque" in question is a little community centre in a residential estate. Last year it was the scene of a funeral for the wife and five children of a local doctor who is Moslem, after they were killed when their house was the target of an arsonist.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 02:57 PM

"Abdur-Rahman Muhammad"
is that Abdur-Rahman Muhammad the sex fiend?
http://singularvoice.wordpress.com/
Oh dear - little BuBu has put yet another one past his own goalkeeper!
Pew: 64% of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support death penalty for leaving Islam
About that number in Britain supports the death penalty, and/or castrating rapists, believes homosexuals are either sick or have made a personal choice on the sexuality and are a health risk to the rest of us, admit to having racist opinions (well over %64 on this), thik foreigners are inferior, believe Britannia rules the waves (oh, and voted for Thatcher)
None of this bigotry is enshrined in British law, just as leaving Islam does not carry the death penalty.
And Thatcher was kicked out of Downing Street on her arse
What's your point

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 03:35 PM

Somehow, I don't think we are addressing the subject of this thread with sufficient gravity.

We could be looking at the start of the last war on planet Earth and you argue about "human rights"......I suppose that's par for the course.

The rhetoric is almost exactly the same as the lead up to Iraq, but the stakes are many times higher.

Teribus...munitions experts on BBC have just said that missile attacks on chemical warfare stores are unlikely, as they would be extremely risky due to "wind drift" of vaporised chemicals, which could kill thousands of civilians.
This would reinforce my guess that last week's "chemical attack" by the regime, was possibly an "accident",
This view is certainly more plausible than a deliberate attack by Mr Assad's regime on non-combatants, at a time when they appear to be winning by conventional means?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 05:09 PM

"leaving Islam does not carry the death penalty."

Over-assertive,Jim; & highly dubious --

"Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts. In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the reintroduction of relatively harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony of regular courts. The punishments include amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy." Wikipedia.

"And Thatcher was kicked out of Downing Street on her arse"

Oh, most charmingly put. Why, what a vindictive little vulgarian it is, to be sure!

"What's your point"

What's yours, for that matter?

Regards as ever

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 05:36 PM

Apostasy in the penal code of Iran:

Apostasy
44
:
Article 26 of the Press Code of 1985 expressly states: "Anybody who insults
Islam and its sanctities by means of the press, amounting to apostasy, shall receive the sentence
for apostasy..." However, the applicable IPC has not defined apostasy nor has it stipulated
any punishment for it. Nevertheless, Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which has
incorporated the provisions of Article 167 of the Constitution almost verbatim, has given
judges a free hand
45
. Thus, judges have invoked the said Article 214 to mete out the death
sentence in many apostasy cases on the basis of the views of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder
of the IRI
46
. In his book, Ayatollah Khomeini declares that only three groups of people are
recognised outside of Islam, who should pay a specific tax,
jazieh
, if they wish to live under
the Islamic rule: Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. He expressly declares: "Nothing shall be
accepted from others outside of those three groups but Islam
or death
47

Source:International Federation for Human Rights

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 06:02 PM

"According to the entry on Saudi Arabia in Country Reports 1998: "Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy. Public apostasy is a crime under Shari'a law and punishable by death" (1999). This was corroborated by information supplied by the Canadian mission in Abu Dhabi, transmitted via the Refugee Branch Asylum Division of Citizenship and Immigration Canada:

The punishment for apostasy (riddah) is well known in Islamic Sharee'ah. The Saudi government is one of the few countries in the Islamic world that fully implements the full Sharee'ah law. This includes the punishment for apostasy.

The one who leaves Islam will be asked to repent by the Sharee'ah judge in an Islamic country; if he does not repent and come back to the true religion, he will be killed as an apostate. (23 Feb. 1999)"

Source: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 06:15 PM

akenaton said 2 days ago:

"Strange how few contributions to this thread."

Well.. it's difficult to decide whether to comment on the topic, or to waste hours commenting on & countering the off-topic and often stupid and narrow-minded remarks by some folk who think they know all the answers.

Syria and what to do there is a serious problem... it IS difficult to 'prove' exactly who did what. But someone caused 1000 deaths and several thousand injured, and I am sure *I* would not like to have to decide whether to do nothing or to risk punishing the wrong group.

It must be comforting to be 'sure' you know the answers.


(The Arab League thinks they are safe in condemning the Syrian govt.)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 11:32 PM

"I though perhaps, if the rebel forces had a cache of chemical weapons, taken at an earlier date and concealed in the area now under conflict, the cache may have been hit in the "sustained barrage" of conventional shelling."

That I believe was your original contention wasn't it Akenaton?

Now it would appear that you have decided that it wasn't chemical weapons that were taken and concealed it was storage tanks containing chemical or biological warfare agents, this change probably prompted by what your "BBC" experts stated. Rather odd though that in Iraq in 1991 Saddam's chemical and biological weapons sites were hit yet none of the inevitable ensuing vapours killed anybody - possible explanation?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 02:05 AM

"What's yours, for that matter?"
No - what's yours Mike - are you really attempting, along with the usual thread hangers-on, to turn this from a discussion on what is happening to the Syrian people, into yet another exercise in Islam-bashing.
Whatever a few nutters may believe should happen to believe should happen to those who "betray their religion", I believe it has as as much to do with being a Muslim as clerical child abuse has with being a Catholic- they are both anomalies, and distortions and misuse of religion.
I know of nobody who has been either executed or "assassinated" for leaving the Muslim religion, in my limited contact with the few I met and talked with through my job in London, I never met one who suggested such a thing - nor do I believe any of them would have supported it in the name of their religion.
Your personal experience of Muslims, other than the garbage regularly pumped out via the sewer and press and extremist communications may be different to mine - if so, please share it - but not here please.
This has nothing whatever to do with the slaughter of the Syrian people, the (sort of) forced inaction of the United Nations, and the cynical non-interventionist stance taken bystates who would otherwise have intervened long ago had it been in their political or economic interest to do so.
Had they done so before what started out as another branch of The Arab Spring demonstrations turned into the civil conflict it has now become, the many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who have been brutally murdered by their ruler would not have died in the horrific way they did and are still doing.
That is what this discussion is about, not whether the Muslims in Syria - or anywhere - would "assassinate" or murder anybody who defected from their religion.
I have become used to the likes of Bobad and Bruce turning these discussions into Islamophobic rants; despite our differences, I have never put you in their league - please don't prove me wrong.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 02:20 AM

Your point is fair, Jim; in that this question about the penalty for apostasy is indeed a drift from the gravamen of this thread, which on reflection I regret having been drawn into. That your denial that it is one of the theoretical penalties in certain sects is perhaps incorrect might make the topic of another thread; but I agree should be forgotten in the context of this one, which relates to a specific event whose actual facts remain thus far uncertain.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:07 AM

I do not find it surprising that there are so few contributions to this thread, even though it is the world's biggest current issue.
I started a thread about Syria because it was not being mentioned at all.
It is just too hard to know what to do for the best.

Jim, you have previously advocated Western military intervention against Assad.
Has you view changed in light of recent events.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:40 AM

Go away Keith - I have nothing to say to you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:42 AM

Sorry - didn't quite finish;
And I sincerely hope nobody else has, but that will be their choice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 05:08 AM

Obama a pork barbeque eating Muslim? Yep that's just a show too, eh? I vote we offer up a sacrifice in order to appease all sides of this horrible tragedy. I nominate _ _ n g _ _ _ n g _ _ _. In this way he can finally do something that benefits mankind.

Who has what to gain in employing chemical weapons against Syrian citizens? Assad? While weapons inspectors are in town? I don't think so. When will people learn that religion is merely a tool? The means to an end in the quest for wealth, power and control which defines everything in the global scene.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

"While weapons inspectors are in town?"
the weapons inspectors left town yesterday in response to "obstructive delays and sniper fire." and who are to blame them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:09 AM

Gold is up $3. Oil is up. Stock markets are on a fear dive. The stimulus is winding down. Etc, etc.....

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:38 AM

BBC 2 hours ago.

UN chemical weapons inspectors have resumed their investigations in Syria, as speculation mounts over a possible Western strike on military targets.

The team's operation was suspended on Tuesday due to security concerns.

On Monday the team's convoy was shot at by unidentified snipers.

They are set to head to one of the sites affected by a suspected attack on the outskirts of Damascus on 21 August in which hundreds of people are reported to have died.
....
It is not clear which districts the inspectors will be visiting on Wednesday.

On Monday they visited the suburb of Muadhamiya, where they went to two hospitals and interviewed doctors and patients as well as witnesses of the attack and took away biological and environmental samples for laboratory tests.

But concerns were raised for their safety after one of their cars came under fire from unidentified gunmen as it crossed the buffer zone between government and rebel-controlled areas.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

The weapons inspectors have resumed their work.

"Under its agreement with Damascus, the dozen UN inspectors and about eight support staff have 14 days to investigate three earlier sites of possible chemical weapon use.

That clock started ticking on their arrival on August 19 and so has six days to go. The UN team, however, led by the Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom and the UN's high representative for disarmament affairs, Angela Kane, is committed to visiting the original three sites after it has finished in Ghouta.

Under the deal with the Assad regime, the inspectors could ask for an extension, which would take their investigation well into September." (Guardian 28th August, Julian Borger, Analysis)

However it appears virtually certain that, as was the case in Iraq, military action will not be delayed to allow the inspectors to carry out their work. In The case of Iraq it was widely believed that a reason for rushing ahead was the danger that completed inspections might weaken the case for an attack.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 08:30 AM

Jim Carroll:

"... Bobad and Bruce turning these discussions into Islamophobic rants"

Once again he is proven wrong and all he can come back with is his usual shit slinging....what a pathetic little man he shows himself to be.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 08:48 AM

I hope he will be proved wrng, if the "islamophobic rants" cease to appear. Touch wood...

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 09:03 AM

"I hope he will be proved wrng, if the "islamophobic rants" cease to appear."

Would you please point out any "Islamophobic rant" that I am accused of having made and if you cannot then would you kindly refrain from smearing me with the same shit that your pathetic little buddy uses to defend his lies.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 09:27 AM

"The weapons inspectors have resumed their work."
Excellent - hpee they get finished before the Brits and US invade, as they seem to have decided (at long last) to do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 10:03 AM

Last night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow made a good argument (as she usually does) for allowing the UN Weapons Inspectors in Syria to complete their task before the United States rushes to launch a military strike.

Quoting former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, she reported that Blix said the inspectors would be able to determine what kind of chemical agents were used, and who possessed them, but it would take about a month. Huffington Post interview


If this can be determined, it would seem to be a prudent course of action to wait until the UN inspectors can complete their task and release their findings before the US responds, but news sources in the USA are reporting that US officials have "evidence" that al-Assad used chemical weapons. Obama seems eager to emulate former President Bush's actions in the run-up to the Iraq war - and what a tragic fiasco that war turned out to be. There is (supposedly) political pressure for Obama to act, even though a significant number of US citizens express reluctance for the US to get involved in another Mid-East conflict. So why is there all this urgency to repeat the recent mistakes of the previous administration? Syria will still be there a month from now. Let's wait and think this thing through rationally before beginning the bombing.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 10:30 AM

"According to a report in Foreign Policy, U.S. intelligence agents intercepted "panicked" phone calls last Wednesday between officials at the Syrian Ministry of Defense and the leaders of a Syrian chemical weapons unit."

"In the intercepted phone calls, one official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense reportedly demands answers from the chemical weapons unit's leader for the alleged chemical weapons attack that killed over 1,300 people last week. While the phone calls, if true, would prove that the Syrian government was responsible for the attacks, it would raise other questions, like was the attack intentionally ordered by Assad's government or was it work of a rogue Syrian officer?"

U.S. Intercepted Calls From Syrian Army Discussing Chemical Attack

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 10:54 AM

Polls say roughly 70% of Americans do not want to be involved in Syria. I'm with them. But you can count on our government to ignore us and do what's "best" - especially for their pockets. They disregard our will at our expense. Then they'll be claiming there is no money for social programs and infrastructure. There's always money for companies like Halliburton.

Ugh! It's Disgusting! But there's nothing we can do about any of it. Bill D., I hear ya. I've been looking at this thread for a couple of days now and groaning at the prospect of the usual polemic exchange from people with all the answers. So my response to this situation in Syria is to enjoy the peace that's in front of me right now. My dog and I are going to grill a steak this afternoon and eat it with a salad. He likes blue cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 11:19 AM

Surely we are not going to allow ourselves to be fooled again, as we were in the Iraq conflict.

Its beginning to look as if the destabilisation of the Middle East is the objective of the Western nations.
We used the pretext of "democracy" to stir up people who have no way of implementing that ideology.
Muslim fundamentalism is still strong and they have no wish to see what we call democracy in their country.....conclusion a bloodbath and countries turned into lawless wastelands.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 11:50 AM

" was the attack intentionally ordered by Assad's government or was it work of a rogue Syrian officer?"

That opens the possibility of yet another scenario. If there was "a rogue Syrian officer " responsible that could mean one acting with the intention of provokng external intervention in order to undermine the regime.

The thing is, we just don't know anything except that an awful lot of people have ben horribly killed.

Before any kind of action could possibly be right there would have to be genuine reason to believe that it would make things better. At this time there is nothing even aproaching that.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 12:04 PM

"..... genuine reason to believe that it would make things better"

I don't think there is anything to be done to make things better in the short term. The best that can be hoped for at this stage is to send a message that the world will not sit idly by while you kill your people with chemical weapons. Hopefully this may help in the long term.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 01:03 PM

Basically then it comes down to "We have to do something, even though it will make things worse"...

That is indeed crazy. It's probably how our leaders are thinking.

August 1914...

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 01:38 PM

"The weapons inspectors have resumed their work."
Excellent - hpee they get finished before the Brits and US invade, as they seem to have decided (at long last) to do
Jim Carroll

Sorry to disappoint Jim, but no-one is advocating invasion.
Except you, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 02:00 PM

"....even though it will make things worse"..."

That's your opinion but I presume that those sending the message believe that it will make them think twice before gassing their people again.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 03:10 PM

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/syria-crisis-mps-to-vote-on-military-action-as-us-and-britain-plan-attack-on-assads-regime-

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 03:52 PM

Link does not work jim.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

Tough titty -
look for tonight's news yourself - if you don't find it too taxing
By the way - never take a job a a weather forecaster
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

No comment at all about the Palestinians that would be killed by any use by Syria or Iran of the WMD they have threatened Israel with.


Must be nice to expect to be killed off by your "friends"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:12 PM

Cameron is talking in terms of a very limited operation, with no question of trying for regime change. Not that it makes any difference what he wants. The British and other little countries are just window dressing.

In practice the odds must be that things are going to be much much bigger before it's over, and spread much wider. That's what I meant by August 1914.

It appears the Labour Party has said they won't support anythng until the inspectors havve done their work and reported to the UN. Since it seems unlikely that Washington will wait for that there could be a problem for them in finding a way to go back on that. The Labour Party has always ended up backing any war that's proposed by a British government.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:51 PM

Hmm...the last war was proposed by a "Labour" government.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:58 PM

Bobad...
"That's your opinion but I presume that those sending the message believe that it will make them think twice before gassing their people again."

And what "message" is Mr Obama's administration sending to their friends in the Egyptian junta, who murdered hundreds of civilians in full view the worlds TV cameras?.....Oh yes, a parcel of arms and financial aid.

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 05:55 PM

Sorry to disappoint Jim, but no-one is advocating invasion.
Except you, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 06:49 PM

Ake, have you ever heard of "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Hermann & Chomsky, 1988)? There is a method to this hypocrisy...

"Propaganda campaigns can occur only when consistent with the interests of those controlling and managing the filters. For example, these managers all accepted the view that the Polish government's crackdown on the Solidarity union in 1980-81 was extremely newsworthy and deserved severe condemnation; whereas the same interests did not find the Turkish military government's equally brutal crackdown on trade unions in Turkey at about the same time to be newsworthy or reprehensible. In the latter case the U.S. government and business community liked the military government's anticommunist stance and open door economic policy; and the crackdown on Turkish unions had the merit of weakening the Left and keeping wages down. In the Polish case, propaganda points could be scored against a Soviet-supported government, and concern could be expressed for workers whose wages were not paid by Free World employers! The fit of this dichotomization to corporate interests and anticommunist ideology is obvious.

We used the concepts of "worthy" and "unworthy" victims to describe this dichotomization, with a trace of irony, as the differential treatment was clearly related to political and economic advantage rather than anything like actual worth. In fact, the Polish trade unionists quickly ceased to be worthy when communism was overthrown and the workers were struggling against a western-oriented neoliberal regime. The travails of Polish workers now, like those of Turkish workers, do not pass through the propaganda model filters. They are both unworthy victims at this point."

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:09 PM

Suzy, Chomsky is right. If the US becomes embroiled in Syria, danger! danger! danger!
There is no winner. It will be worse than the catastrophe in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Syria's defender, Russia has nukes. Pakistan has nukes. Hezbollah will feel justified
in attacking Israel.

World War III anyone?

Cluster bombs have been used by the US. Depleted uranium infects Iraq. Weapons are
being sent to Israel and the Egyptian military. Saudis will make up the difference.

Diplomacy is the only answer. The only ostensible beneficiaries are the military industrial complex. I say ostensible because they will ultimately be the losers as well.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM

The fact that invasion is not being advocated does not mean it won't happen in time. The relevant expression is "mission drift". For that matter the fact that invasion is not being publicly advocated, and is being publicly disavowed does not actually mean that it may not in fact be anticipated. "Truth is the first casualty of war".

Moreover "invasion" as such is just a tactic. Germany never invaded Britain. Nor for that matter did Japan invade America or America invade Japan.

I note that the Daily Mirror reported yesterday that there were SAS forces actually in Syria already. Perhaps it was true, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM

Chemical weapons have been used for years. Depleted Uranium is a chemical weapon
found in cluster bombs. White phosphorous used on Palestinians. What do you think
are in those drones?

What was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Makes "chemical weapons" usage moot.

This is a propaganda piece to gin up more war.

War solves no problems but creates far more.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 02:55 AM

"Depleted Uranium is a chemical weapon
found in cluster bombs." - Stringsinger

Really??? News to me, which is not surprising as it is complete and utter twaddle (Depleted uranium would be far too heavy to be used in "Cluster munitions" - for use in the anti-tank and runway denial roles "Cluster Bombs" use shaped charges for penetration NOT DU)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 03:18 AM

"Sorry to disappoint Jim, but no-one is advocating invasion.
Except you, obviously."
It is difficult not to be disgusted by the usual suspect's expression of obvious glee at the fact that no decision has been taken yet as to how they intend to act to defend the people of Syria against one of Britain's old trading partners and allies - another few days of entertainment on the box watching the gas attacks and slaughtering of those nasty "implanted" Arabs I suppose.
Some sort of intervention is inevitable and the longer it is spun out, the more innocent deaths and the bloodier any action will be.
It is more than a little ironic that is is the Tory Government who has finally got off their arses and advocated military action.
It has always been the responsibility of the U.N. to put a halt to the slaughter and allowing the Russian/Chinese vetos to block any action has not only allowed the killing to go on, but it has debased them as an organisation
Jim Carroll

"Britain Will Seek UN Clearance for Military Action Against Syria
By Andrew Sparrow, Guardian UK
28 August 13
David Cameron says UK will put forward resolution at security council 'authorising necessary measures to protect civilians'
Britain will try to get the United Nations security council to authorise military intervention in Syria, David Cameron has said.
He made the announcement on Twitter after the Labour party decided overnight to toughen its stance on the issue, making support for the government in Thursday's Commons vote conditional on Cameron's seeking the involvement of the UN.
But Downing Street sources said approaching the UN had always been part of the government's plan, and denied Labour had bounced Cameron into acting."
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/330-131/19113-britain-will-seek-un-clearance-for-military-action-against-syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 07:05 AM

"I hope he will be proved wrng, if the "islamophobic rants" cease to appear."

Would you please point out any "Islamophobic rant" that I am accused of having made and if you cannot then would you kindly refrain from smearing me with the same shit that your pathetic little buddy uses to defend his lies.


I'm still waiting.....put up or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 07:56 AM

Jim.
one of Britain's old trading partners and allies

Is there a single country in the world that refused to trade with Syria?
If not, why single out Britain?
What about Assad's arms suppliers for instance?

Britain was never really an ally either.
That would be Russia, China, Iran and Hezbolla.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 08:45 AM

"Is there a single country in the world that refused to trade with Syria?"
Sorry Keith, as I have just said on the 'Irish Famine' thread, I've used up the single daily response I've allocated myself for time-wasting with trolls.
Whatever Britain decides, it needs to be remembered that they share some responsibility for the Assad regime - Vince Cable, Secretary of State for business admitted that Britain regularly adopted a policy of trading with monsters like the Assad family.
They ruled Syria for decades using torture and 'disappearances' on a regular basis and on a grand scale - various British governments totally ignored the Amnesty report outlining the techniques they used.
The British arms industry was issued with export licenses for small arms ammunition (identified by one kind Mudcatter as "sniper bullets") which were almost certainly used against civilians in Homs.
Members of the Assad family are still regular visitors to London for shopping trips.
Assad's gofer (and brother-in-law), who was still a regular visitor to Britain on 'little errands' for the Assads long after the Homs massacres, owns six properties in London which remain unconfiscated, and he remains unarrested despite the fact that, by dint of his job he is an active, practicing war criminal.
That other countries trade with these people is only proof that Britain's morality as far as human rights abuses and war crimes is really no better that the hypocritical stance taken by any other wealthy and powerful state with a total disinterest in seeing off this planet's monsters.
That Britain has finally decided to get up of its bum and do something to stop this particular monster is to be welcomed.
That the delay in doing so has led to the death of many thousand innocents is obvious.
That someone here apparently takes some sort of perverse pleasure in the fact that necessary action has been once again delayed by dithering, is to be expected, (especially as that same individual has formerly suggested that Assad be sold "riot-control gear" in order to gather up opposition to his terrorism into his torture chambers and safely out of the world's view), is sickening.
Now, where did I put the Immodeum?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 09:20 AM

No country in the world refused to trade with Syria.
It is your prejudice that leads you to single us out.
Britain never supplied sniper rifles.
You know this from the other thread so you make a liar of yourself again.
Britain never supplied Assad any arms.
That would be your old mates the Russians, the Chinese and Iran.

You are a dishonest and prejudiced person Jim.
And shameless about it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 12:23 PM

I maintain that depleted uranium was used on Iraq and is one of the components of the destruction of the health of the Iraqi people. This has been verified.

Obama may be making a terrible mistake in military intervention in Syria which is a replay
of the invasion of Iraq. The UN inspectors should be allowed to continue their work before any action is taken by the U.S. The action must be diplomatic otherwise a royal mess will be created in Syria just as it has been in Iraq. Iraq is now embroiled in a religious civil war. Syria will follow suit and that country will be equally destroyed.

Invasion of Syria will not make anyone safer and could be the catalyst for further attacks
on the U.S.

Obama is following a Bush approach through lining the pockets of military contractors.

If Obama does this, the U.S. will receive a condemnation from the world community.

Most of the so-called intelligence evidence for the use of chemical weapons is coming from Israel, and the Netanyahu government, not a reliable source of information.

We don't know how and who here. Let the UN inspectors do their work before jumping
off into a face-saving by the Commander-in-Chief.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 02:08 PM

Iraq is now embroiled in a religious civil war. Syria will follow suit
Too late Stringy.
There has long been a sectarian civil war in Syria.
You must have been preoccupied with looking for faults with Israel.

No-one is advocating intervention in their war.
Just to send the message that they can not gas civilians with impunity.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 02:42 PM

"No-one is advocating intervention in their war."
Simply not true - the present "war" escalated from peaceful protests into a civil war when Assad realised that he could get away with brute force against protesters and his supporters joined him.
"Britain never supplied sniper rifles."
You said they did, - you described them as "a few sniper rifles" and hastily withdrew when you realised that you'd said it at the time when women and children were being massacred by snipers on the streets of Homs.
You changed your statement to there was no record of the sale', 'the deal was made and never fulfilled', 'the government didn't issue export licences', 'they issued licenses but withdrew them'.... and several more versions - I think you finally settled on "I mistakenly thought you were talking about Libya".
I'll dig out the whole sorry saga if it is any help - please, please say it is!!!
Me a "dishonest and prejudiced person" - I'd need a five year course at nightschool to come anywhere near your good self
"No-one is advocating intervention in their war."
Britain has agreed to approach the UN. to mount a military attack on Syria before it invades.
"Britain's Armed Forces are drawing up plans for military action in Syria as the Assad regime says it will use "all available means" to defend itself."
Despite the delay in military action, intervening in Assad's dirty war is exactly wat Cameron, Hague et al are planning - is that not "intervention in their war?"
Why are you lying about the British Government's intentions, and why are you lying by claiming that the conflict wasn't an escalation of protests for democracy in Syria and pretending it was a civil war – do you really support Assad – yu appear to (as long as he doesn't use chemical weapons)
Don't forget to let me know about your "only a few sniper bullets" posting
Have a good night now y'all hear!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 03:09 PM

Is this being reported anywhere besides RTE ?
"Earlier, Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, who led opposition among Conservative backbenchers, said the situation on the ground may be evolving.
Mr Bridgen told RTÉ News that information emerging from the UN team may have helped stall military efforts, saying he suspected the attack may have even been an accident.
The UN team will not be able to confirm this publicly, as they are merely reporting on whether an attack did take place or not."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0829/470916-syria/

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 03:12 PM

You're a bit too clever for me Suzy, but I have read some stuff by Chomsky and it fits well with my own ideas, as I was a Communist Party member for many years.

Alas I now don't see "politics" solving any problems, just compounding them.

Its been said many times here, how rotten politicians are, but we still keep voting for them.
I agree that we need to get rid of Corporate Capitalism, but its not going to be easy or pleasant
Perhaps humanity has reached its "zenith", or the depths of a politician's depravity?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 04:11 PM

I'll dig out the whole sorry saga if it is any help - please, please say it is!!!

Yes please!

I never had evidence of sniper rifles to Syria, because there is none.
You thread-drifted a whole raft of countries into the discussion and I momentarily mixed up countries.
Sorry again, but it has all been explained before.

I have no evidence of Britain supplying them, and neither do you.
It is all bollocks.
You lie.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

IT started as protest demonstrations, but it definitely escalated into a civil war. And the side fighting against Assad has a lot of people who would appear to be every bit as bad.

If the chemical weapons can't be got out of the picture the chance of them getting into the hands of such people is very great. If it hasn't in fact already happened. Achieving that seems pretty hopeless, but that should be the central aim for any kind of outside involvement that could be justified.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

"I never had evidence of sniper rifles to Syria, because there is none."
You and Terminus claimed the recorded sales of "small arms ammunition" was "only sniper rifes" -are you really claiming I am lying - please say I am - again, we were here not so long ago resul;ting in another penalty point in your 'book of lies'.
"the chance of them getting into the hands of such people is very great."
Rather than remaining in the hands of Assad, do you mean?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:03 AM

I did say it, but by mistake.
Does it surprise you that I am actually fallible.

I am your only source for the sniper rifles claim.
Your only source is saying it is bollocks, so what is your case.

We have been through this many times.
You know it is bollocks, but still try to use it to attack Britain.

This thread is about the real, unimaginable suffering of real people and children.
To you it is just another platform for Jim to attack Britain.

Stick to the issues Jim.
Do not try to make it all about me or about Britain again.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:05 AM

"It is all bollocks.
You lie."
Here it is from the pair of you, right up to the point where you changed your mind for the first time.
Five more to go - how do you want them - one excuse at a time, or all together.
Troll ration expended.
Jim Carroll

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 09:21 AM
But why do you ONLY criticise Britain?
Not Russia.
Not China.
Not Syria.
Britain is hardly in the same league.
You have clearly been searching vigorously, but all you have come up with is some sniper rifles.
The only other "weapons" supplied were armour plated buses, tear gas and water cannon.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 01:09 PM
You have chosen not to live in Britain and curse it with nearly every breath, so we can assume that you retain your citizenship as a cynical convenience.
I do not believe it is the reason you single out Britain for attack here.
For one sniper rifle you could buy 50 or more Kalashnikovs.
With their high rate of fire they are far superior when you just want to kill large numbers of people indiscriminately.
Russia supplies them by the ton.
Unarmed armoured buses, tear gas and water cannon are no good for massacres either.
Still you attack Britain while IGNORING the pitiful subject of this thread!
In just your second post you ascribed a statement to me, in quotes, that I never said and does not represent my opinion.
Straight in with a personal attack backed up with a lie.
You are the enemy of honest, friendly debate.
Now, do you have any comments on the subject of this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 03:21 PM
SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION FOR SYRIA,
That would be for the sniper rifles Jim.
Britain does not make Kalashnikov rounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 12 Feb 12 - 12:24 PM
To murder civilians, their vast arsenal of Kalshnikovs each do a better job than a sniper rifle.
Sniper rifles are worth more than 50 Kalishnikovs and each round has to be loaded separately by hand.
Armour plated buses, tear gas and water are even less effective.
Britain has no blame for what is going on in Homs, but you only want to talk about Britain.
I will argue the politics of arms sales with you, but not on this thread.
If you only want to talk about Britain not Homs on this thread, you are talking to yourself now, you hate filled obsessive.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: GUEST,Teribus - PM
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 12:29 AM
The ammunition (unspecified as to type) sold by someone in the UK (Not the UK Government and hence NOT sold by the "British") two years ago will have long gone before the current outbreak of violence in Syria - Guess what "Jim Lad" - Snipers have to practice - they do rather a lot of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 03:15 PM
Even liberal democracies have to deal with riots.
Non-lethal crowd control techniques are preferrable to live rounds.
If only Syria would restrict its security forces to using tear gas and water.
It would not be such a crime to supply such things, compared to what Russia and China supplies.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 03:15 PM
Even liberal democracies have to deal with riots.
Non-lethal crowd control techniques are preferrable to live rounds.
If only Syria would restrict its security forces to using tear gas and water.
It would not be such a crime to supply such things, compared to what Russia and China supplies.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:11 AM

Yes Jim, I did say sniper rifles were supplied, but they were not.
For the 50th time, sorry.

Do you have any source other than me for them?
No, because there were no weapons supplied to Syria by Britain.

Do you think I have access to secret intelligence that no search-engine can find?
The name is Keith, not Bond.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 03:27 AM

"Do you have any source other than me for them?"
Don't need it Keith - it's registered as "ammunition" in government records - doesn't really matter what it was - it was supplied to a genocidal monster by the British Government, 'nuff for me.
You described sniper bullets as harmless and your friend insisted that it was ok to sell them as, "snipers needed to practice" - more than 'nuff for me.
You went on to suggest that it was ok for the British Government to sell riot control equipment, as they were already doing, to the same genocidal monster with a long-term reputation for lifting opponents off the streets, torturing them and disappearing them - icing on the cake.
As I said, Britain owes the people of Syria a great deal as it has helped (in a small way) to facilitate the slaughter by selling ammunition (no matter what kind) and riot equipment and has supported that monster as a trading partner for decades.
The fact that the British Parliament voted down Cameron and Hague in Parliament last night (an extremely dodgy position for a government to be in) and has decided to leave the job to the Yanks and the French really doesn't put Britain in a good light - either as a debt payer or a humanitarian state.
There, really have overstepped my "troll quota"
Have a good day d'ya hear now.
Jim Carroll
PS I take it from your silence that you don't want the other five excuses for your "sniper bullets" support - plenty of time to sort them out between now and tomorrow - one at a time or singly, however you prefer?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:39 AM

There was a certificate to supply a small amount of ammunition.
The military and security services do not buy ammunition in small quantities, and Britain does not make ammunition for Syria's Russian weapons.

No sniper ammunition and no rifles or any other weapons.

This thread is about the real and unimaginable suffering of real people and children.
To you it is just another platform for Jim to attack Britain.

Stick to the issues Jim.
Do not try to make it all about me or Britain yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:34 AM

What's that argument about? Both Keith and Jim are agreed that selling arms to the Syrian government is wrong. Given that agreement, why is it significant to argue about whether the British government has been guilty of that or not? If they have they were wrong, if they haven't that would make a nice change. It's not as if either of them are in control of what the British government has done.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

I am not arguing.
Jim can claim what he likes but not put me up as the source.

I am just saying that I have no evidence of it and do not believe there is any.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:57 AM

To whom it may concern - no - not you Keith.
Whatever the outcome of America and whoever's planned military intervention - one thing is quite clear as far as Britain is concerned - it has to review its arms trade policy and it's ethics in general trade.
It is obscene that Britain was still selling artillery shells to Gadaffi,leading to the ludicrous situation of Gadaffi troops and Arab Spring opposition killing each other with weapons supplied by Britain, the latter donated to fight the government murderously oppressive behaviour.
Despite describing Gadaffi as a murderous tyrant, his son was being educated for leadership in Britain.
Nearly a month into the Arab Spring demonstrations David Cameron opened an Arms Trade fair aimed at attracting Arab customers - including those likely to be involved in future protests.
No matter what weapons/ammunition were sold to Assad, and there is no question that some where, his track record should have been enough to guarantee that he was never considered a suitable leader to be trusted with such trade.
An amnesty report on human rights in Syria, going back as far an the present dictator's father, made it clear that the people were subjected to false arrest, torture and murder on a regular basis - that report was totally ignored by Britain, who continues to treat Syria as a trading partner.
During the Homs massacres a high ranking Syrian official pointed out how much value Assad placed on British support and friendship.
His suggestion that this should be used as a bargaining ploy to stop the killings was totally ignored.
Assad's gofer - a war criminal, still visits Britain to pursue his business interests and to run the Assad family errands and he still owns six opulent properties in London.
As I said - Britain owes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:58 AM

"I maintain that depleted uranium was used on Iraq and is one of the components of the destruction of the health of the Iraqi people. This has been verified." - Stringsinger

Well no you claimed that depleted uranium was used in cluster bombs in Iraq - put quite simply - it wasn't.

DU ammunition was used in the area:

1: Probably in great quantities during the eight year long Iran/Iraq War 1980 to 1988 (But of course that would have no detrimental impact on the health of the Iraqi people as it wasn't fired by the US or any of their allies).

2: It was fired in great quantities during desert storm January to March 1991 at Iraqi armour in locations far removed from any large centres of population. (But of course only that fired by the US and their allies would have had a detrimental impact on the health of the Iraqi people)

3: A shed load of it was fired by Saddam Hussein's Hind gunships as they suppressed the Shia rebellion in and around Basra in the immediate aftermath of Desert Storm (Estimated death toll was ~200,000) were in addition to all those DU rounds Saddam drained marshes and poisoned ground water to punish the Ma'dan who had to flee to Iran or get killed (But of course none of that had a detrimental effect on the health of the people of Iraq)

4: Very little was fired during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and what was fired was restricted to attacking armour (But of course all of this had a marked and detrimental effect on the health of the Iraqi people)

As far as I am aware no-one is advocating an invasion of Syria and as of the vote of the House of Commons last night the UK will be taking no action at all - just as well really as we have got nothing to take any action with.

As for "Christmas's" contentions about the vast arsenal of weapons sent to Syria by Britain:

A) All he can come up with is the granting of an export licence for NATO standard rifle ammunition (115,000 rounds) with no evidence whatsoever that the shipment was ever made.

B) The licence was granted in 2009 (Current problems in Syria erupted in March 2011) , yet he assumes that all those killed in Syria to date have been killed solely by ammunition allegedly supplied by an exporter who he blithely assumes to be the British Government or an unscrupulous "Brit" (IIRC the man was a Dane or a Dutchman).

Too bloody daft for words.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:32 AM

What on earth is the point of arguing about how much of the damage was caused by The US or Britain etc directly? The only significant question is how to minimise ther harm done in the present and future. There's quite enough to argue about in that without wasting energy trying to dig up the bodies,

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:01 AM

I'm amazed how perceptive the politicians have become....They've realised that they have been "rumbled", that the electorate do not trust them, that we know they lie every time they open their mouths, so they have done something sensible for once and voted for no military strikes on Syria

They are of course still working in their QWN interests, they hope we will think they have changed, started to look at the interests of those who elected them, but don't be fooled, this is just one small victory in what is surely a war of attrition.

Cameron has overstepped the mark, taken the "stupidity" of the electorate for granted......he is finished.
Something radical may be about to happen.

Mr Obama still has a big problem in Mrs Hawk who will beat the war drum loud and hard........you folks are going to have to move your arses damn quick.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 08:13 AM

America has just announced that it will attempt to assemble an international force to intervene in Syria despite Britain's decision not to get involved
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:00 AM

Welcome to the Arms Trade
Jim Carroll

BRITAIN HAS APPROVED MORE THAN £12BN IN MILITARY SALES TO COUNTRIES IT CONDEMNS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, INCLUDING SYRIA.
1:36pm UK, Wednesday 17 July 2013
By David Bowden, Defence Correspondent

Britain has sold industrial materials to Syria that could have been used to make chemical weapons, according to a new report by MPs on arms sales.
The Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) said it was just one example of numerous questionable deals between UK contractors and countries the Foreign Office (FCO) deems to have poor human rights records. 　
The CAEC said supplies of sodium fluoride, which could be used to make chemical weapons, were sent to Syria in the last couple of years.
Sodium fluoride is a legitimate component of a number of civilian products including toothpaste, but there is no way of knowing what it was used for in the end.
MPs have fired a warning shot across the Government's bows, questioning the checks made on more than 3,000 export licences worth over £12bn to 27 countries on the FCO's own list of countries of human rights concern.
While the CAEC acknowledged many of the licences were for dual-use (military or civilian) items or other equipment which could not readily be used for "internal repression", the MPs said the numbers were still "surprisingly large".
The biggest chunk of the £12bn comes from Israel, which accounts for £7.8bn.
The Saudis are next, with close to £1.9bn, and China is third, with almost £1.4bn.
The UK also has licences to sell arms to Iran, Egypt and Syria among many others.
"The scale of the extant strategic licences to the Foreign Office's 27 countries of human rights concern puts into stark relief the inherent conflict between the Government's arms exports and human rights policies," said CAEC chairman Sir John Stanley.
Licences to Israel account for almost £8bn
"The committees adhere to their previous recommendation that the Government should apply significantly more cautious judgements when considering arms export licence applications for goods to authoritarian regimes 'which might be used to facilitate internal repression' in contravention of the Government's stated policy."
Labour MP Richard Burden, who chairs the Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group, said the amount going to Israel was "astonishing".
"What is most striking is that over half of the total is going to 'Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories'," he said.
"Look a little closer and you see that almost all of those exports are going to Israel, with only £5,539 going to the Occupied Territories.
"Look closer still and you see something utterly astonishing - 380 different licences have been granted for exports of arms and military equipment to Israel.
"However, £7,765,450,000 of the £7.8bn worth of equipment exported to Israel is covered by just one licence approval - for equipment employing cryptography and software for equipment employing cryptography.
"This is bizarre, particularly as there are scores of other licences granted for export of cryptography equipment and software which have a substantial value - but still only add up to a tiny fraction of this amount.
"I am tabling questions to the minister today to find out just what this licence was all about. Is just one company involved? Why does the scale of this licence dwarf all others with similar titles? What does the contact actually involve?"
Prime Minister David Cameron has made no secret of his desire to push British defence sales and has led missions to India, the Gulf and Saudi Arabia to try and bring in multimillion-pound deals, even though Saudi Arabia is among the states on the concern list from the Foreign Office.
Mr Cameron led a mission to Saudi Arabia in 2012
As well as Saudi Arabia, the FCO's concern list comprises Afghanistan, Belarus, Burma, China, Colombia, Cuba, North Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Fiji, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
Argentina is one of five additional countries about which the CAEC has raised concern - the others are Bahrain, Egypt, Madagascar and Tunisia.
The arms business allows nations to buy diplomatic and political clout by selling weapons and technology whilst at the same time protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs back home.
But the problem it seems from this latest report is making sure it is known who is getting their hands on that technology in the end.
A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills spokesman said the Government "operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world".
"An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security," he said.
"All licences highlighted in the committees' report were fully assessed against a range of internationally agreed stringent criteria which take into account the circumstances at the time the licence application was made.
"When circumstances change or new information comes to light we can - and do - revoke extant licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria."
Amnesty International's arms control expert Oliver Sprague has called for greater transparency.
"Looking at these, the Government's own figures, it would be hard not to conclude that the UK Government's arms sales practices are at odds with its stated policy not to send weapons to anywhere that poses a clear risk that they could be used for human rights violations," he said.
"What is needed now is an urgent explanation of what these licences were actually for, who was going to use them and what assurances were in place to ensure they were not going to be used for human rights violations.
"Until there is much greater transparency over exactly what we are selling and to whom, it will be impossible for Parliament or the public to have confidence in the UK's arms sales policies."


http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/britains-chemical-sales-to-syria-revealed

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM

America has just announced that it will attempt to assemble an international force to intervene in Syria


Plus ça change

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:34 AM

Teribus
"So far they can talk about it all they like, the veto power of Russia and China blocks any good that the UN might have been able to do, not surprising that really as both of those states do not want to set uncomfortable precedents as they may wish to attack sections of their own populations before too long - (Sorry what was that you said? - Oh yes, Chechnya, Dagestan and Tibet I had forgotten all about them).

Surely you know Mr T, that the US has used its veto in the UN many times, to protect violations by Israel?

Islamic Fundamentalism is also, I would think, a more serious and present threat to Russia and China, than it is to we in the WEST?

I would be interested in your opinion of the West's reaction to the overthrow of "democracy" in Egypt and the subsequent slaughter of hundreds of demonstrators......was that not an attack on their own populace?.....Why do we not strike THEM??

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM

UN inspectors leave Saturday. Saturday night? Sunday night?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:50 AM

Why do we not strike them?

This is just about the use of chemical weapons.
We can not intervene in every dispute and perceived injustice in every country.

If the world comes to accept the use of chemical weapons, the world will be a worse place.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 09:59 AM

I understand that point Keith, but surely that only gives the signal that it's alright to slaughter any democratic opposition, as long as you don't use gas to do so?

If you open fire with live ammunition into a crowd of demonstrators, the bullets are just as lethal and indiscriminate as gas?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:04 AM

When we have as much information as we can hope to get about what happened is the time to begin to decide what can be done that will reduce the chance of it happening again. Only then, and not till then.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:21 AM

So McGrath,in view of your failure to provide the forum with an example of an "Islamophobic rant" that you have, by implication, accused me of having made, I would suggest that an apology is in order, that is if you are man enough to admit you were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:23 AM

At least you all across the pond are willing to debate this in Parliament and it was encouraging to see Prime Minister David Cameron get some push-back for his stance supporting a strike against Syria. President Obama seems reluctant to present his case to Congress, possibly because he knows he would get push-back from both parties (even though Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi seems to support a strike against Syria). Obama seems hell-bent for leather to fire off a couple of missiles at Syria, regardless of whether the Allies participate, regardless of what the UN weapons inspectors ultimately conclude, regardless of the consequences for Israel and the security of the United States and the world.

PBS News Hour host Judy Woodruff asks the $64 question: "Mr. President, with all due respect, what would this accomplish?" http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec13/obama_08-28.html

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:41 AM

Gee, when the U.S. starts bombing Syria back into the stone age I wonder how many innocent civilians will end up as "collateral damage"?

Ooops - I forgot; they don't count.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 11:10 AM

Greg, do you have the same concern for the "collateral damage" incurred by the innocent civilians of Assad's chemical weapons, do they not count? If so do you not think that an attempt should be made to dissuade him from doing so again? I neither support nor oppose what is being proposed as a deterrent but I strongly believe that a message has to be sent, I just don't know what would be the most effective way to do it, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 12:58 PM

Here ya go Bobad ol' bud,ENJOY

We've come as long way from 1966.

Not.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:31 PM

If we do not treat nerve gas as different to every other form of violent oppression, it will become just as common.

At the moment it is still a "red line."
A "game changer."

If we lose that we condemn unknown thousands to death by nerve gas because any tyrant can get it cheap.

They might hesitate if they know it will cost them their presidential palace.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Don Wise
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:49 PM

.....Fools rush in where angels fear to tread............

"Putting out the fire with gasoline"

Does the US Administration really want the Bin Laden prize as best al-Qaida recruiting agents???

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:55 PM

You've definitely got a point Keith....but the problems are rarely as simple as that when we are talking about retaliation.

If it can be proved that Assad deliberately used nerve gas, some sort of retaliation would be the "right thing to do", but sometimes the right thing to do, is not the "best thing" to do.
Getting rid of Saddam was probably the "right thing to do", but it has not turned out to be the "best thing" for the people of Iraq.

There is nothing simplistic about running these countries or keeping the warring factions from butchering one another.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:50 PM

Just say no, Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:59 PM

He has used nerve gas before, on a smaller scale.
The response of the West was exactly what you are advocating we do again.
Nothing.
The result was a bigger atrocity next time.
Why should we expect a different result from the same response.

A few hundred died in the latest atrocity.
Would it make a difference if it was a few thousand next time.
A large attack on a city like Homs would easily achieve that.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 03:42 PM

Here are tweo things that can be done...

First, in the mad-dash-to-Iraq I suggested that if Bush and Cheney were so concerned about one man then just take him out and leave everyone else alone... Of course, the war mongers here who wanted a big war to entertain them thought that was an awful idea... Nothing short of war would please them...

So, my first idea is to take Assad out with Special Forces... Oh, and don't think for a minute that we can't do it because we sho nuff can...

Second, charge him with war crimes and issue a $1,000,000 reward for his capture...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:13 PM

So who replaces Assad when we take him out with Special Forces ...al-Qaeda? That's why Obama has been walking a knife edge on this whole ordeal. Sure, Assad is a bad guy, but if/when he's gone, he leaves a power vacuum that has to be filled by someone, perhaps a Free Syrian Army candidate, or perhaps someone who doesn't give a whit about the good ol' US of A. And that's what worries the US strategists when it comes to Syria.

And why Obama wants a retaliatory strike for chemical weapons but just a "shot across the bow" that doesn't effectively cripple the Assad regime and leave him vulnerable to being taken out by someone over there who's a whole lot worse when it comes to "US interests" than he is.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed (
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:28 PM

Obama seems to say what happened in Syria (regardless of the culpret) is in the USAs " national interests". Why so? I do understand the humanitarian issue, but- specifically what makes it Syria all of a sudden of USAs "national interest"?

BTW, I understand Russia and Iran s interest in the area- but, I am inpuzzled by China s interest in this issue (I expect it may have in intrerest in bankrupting the USA through foreign conflict, as it is a major banker).

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:33 PM

"Here ya go Bobad ol' bud,ENJOY"

Thanks Greg ol' bean, I see from your usual glib bullshit reply that you have really given the issue a lot of thought - a process with which you are apparently not overburdened with.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:37 PM

Somewhere it was reported that Syria has 8.3 trillion cubic feet (or thereabouts) of natural gas ...that's pretty interesting to a lot of folks i.e. energy corporations.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:01 PM

I think the main problem is as guest says, what will fill the vacuum after Mr Assad is removed......and I have a problem with assassination of leaders of sovereign countries.....do we have the right?
Most of us are against the drone warfare which seems to be favoured by Mr Obama, yet we seem to be aux fait with targeted assassination?

Still seems to me that de-stabilisation is the name of the game for the West.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:22 PM

ake... "Still seems to me that de-stabilisation is the name of the game for the West."

Finally! On more than one level.

Yes. That is glib and vague and may be taken as both a compliment and a dig... as intended.

BP knows what will happen (if they have permission). In any case, it'll be a gas.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:18 PM

'Smatter, BooBad - didn't like the song? Its certainly germaine to the issue under discussion.

Or by "glib bullshit reply" do you mean I've caught you out and you don't wish to admit it?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:21 PM

"Its certainly germaine to the issue under discussion."

How?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM

"I've caught you out and you don't wish to admit it?"

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

This article from the New republic suggests that the US knew about the chemical weapon attack before it took place and questions whether it could have been stopped:

Could the U.S. Have Prevented the Chemical Weapons Attack in Damascus?

Subject: BS: How Crazy are Kerry & Obama?
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:42 PM

Batshit or crazy like foxes?

They bring us to the brink of WW3, but why?

They're talking about a weekend warrior bombing of Syria, but with no troop committment. Why?

Iran has said it will attack Israel if we attack Syria, and Russia has said it will defend Syria. That's WW3. What's to be gained from that? Nothing? Then Kerry & Obama reek of batshit.

Unless the plan is to destroy America. That would advance the agenda greatly, and that would make them crazy like foxes.

Also, if Iran shoots its wad on Israel, then the U.S. troops on the ground can go in and mop up the Persian Empire in, what, 2-3 days? Cunning foxes.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:53 PM

The immoderators keep moving my questions about Obama's sanity to this thread. Oh, well. The lunatic depends on a million such acts of craven obeisance per day. Don't forget to sign your children up FIRST when Obama requests cannon fodder.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:34 AM

Jim, your "evidence" against Britain.

"The CAEC said supplies of sodium fluoride, which could be used to make chemical weapons, were sent to Syria in the last couple of years.

Sodium fluoride is a legitimate component of a number of civilian products including toothpaste, but there is no way of knowing what it was used for in the end."

Sodium fluoride is a harmless substance freely available everywhere.
They dose our water with it to protect our teeth
It is not a weapon, although you would not want a big sack to land on your toe.

Meanwhile Russia supplies all the guns tanks aircraft and ammo assad needs to slaughter his people.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 07:10 AM

And you were the first to support Israeli's banning of the export of the essential agricultural fertilzer into Palestine "because it can be used for explosives".
The components of the chemicals sold and their potentioan were well-know when the trade took place, if the exporters were not aware of them they would be breaching all safety regulations.
Assad and his family before him were known tortures and human rights abusers - they should never have been sold anything that might have been used for chemical weaponry, no matter what other uses it might be put to.
Britain not only sold material which could be developed as weapons - they also drew a veil on his human rights record and continued to trade with him and regard him as an ally.
The Assad regime is one of those who the Business Minister Vince Cable described as untrusworthy, yet they traded with them
They totally ignored the Amnesty report on his behaviour and the Syrian people are now paying the consequences.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 09:17 AM

Sodium fluoride can not be made into explosives.
It is harmless.
There is no reason not to sell it to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 11:50 AM

I can only hope that the US & France & anyone else that is considering "making a point" to Syria about these incidents will be sure they have good evidence and make the response relevant & measured.

Everyone knows the world is not like 1939-40-41 when it was clear who was attacking whom and exactly who made the decisions! Now, those who wish to cause pain & damage to others have learned to be semi-discrete about it in order to get away with just the crap **someone** in Syria is doing these days! We are 99% sure (read John Kerry's explanation yesterday) where the gas came from and which side used it, but the guilty parties have 'some' plausible deniability about exact responsibility. So... WHO do we punish, if anyone at all?
If nothing is done, someone will say.."Ah...as long as we keep it 'occasional' and hide the exact source, we can get away with almost anything!"
If we do anything, some will use OUR response as an excuse to....(see all the ideas above).

There is NO clear & obvious way to combat surreptitious nastiness...yet doing nothing seems to be worse.

I see the British parliament's vote as more of a "we are just tired of sending OUR buys to deal with THEIR fights", rather than a concern for human rights. (I listened to a bunch of the debate.)

I also see the US trending towards unilateral action as scary and a 'no-win' situation.

I wonder what would happen if Russia were to get away from their "whatever is in OUR self interest" mode for awhile...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
.........and those in this thread who use any excuse to personally attack those they disagree with are not helping at all to explain, analyze or clarify the situation! Not that my mentioning it will slow any of you down in your personal feuds.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 12:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 07:10 AM

And you were the first to support Israeli's banning of the export of the essential agricultural fertilzer into Palestine "because it can be used for explosives".
The components of the chemicals sold and their potentioan were well-know when the trade took place, if the exporters were not aware of them they would be breaching all safety regulations.
Assad and his family before him were known tortures and human rights abusers - they should never have been sold anything that might have been used for chemical weaponry, no matter what other uses it might be put to.
Britain not only sold material which could be developed as weapons - they also drew a veil on his human rights record and continued to trade with him and regard him as an ally.
The Assad regime is one of those who the Business Minister Vince Cable described as untrusworthy, yet they traded with them
They totally ignored the Amnesty report on his behaviour and the Syrian people are now paying the consequences.
Jim Carroll


You said it Jim. Now what if Syria decides to retaliate by doing something to Israel? What then, WWIII? These other Western nations are like bad friends who try to get you to do stuff they wouldn't do themselves. I don't see anything military touching this problem.

Have you ever seen this film called "Thirteen Days"? It shows how President Kennedy had to work through back channels to prevent an all out catastrophe. Because those jerks that mill about the Pentagon were trying to start a war without him! War mongers.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 02:07 PM

Human Rights?
Surely, in a Islamic countries, those "rights" are - to a greater or lesser degree ( depending on the country, in question) clearly linked to religious teachings.
I believe the West should emphatically remove any religious references from their constitutions, procedures etc.
Forget "God Bless America!" Forget "God Bless the Queen!"
Any tie-in with religion is a very dangerous thing for a country to do.
The State must be totally separate from the Church!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:27 PM

And without it of course eveything is lovely, as it was in Cambodia under Pol Pot...or The USSR under Stalin...or those nice secular rules Sadat and Assad...or North Korea...

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:49 PM

North Korea? Doesn't that chap think he is divine?
Anyway, Stalin and Pol Pot didn't commit their crimes in the name of atheism!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:57 PM

Yes!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/syrian-air-strikes-obama-congress

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

I bet none of the Western leaders are "believers"!
How can - for example -a millionaire like Cameron be a follower of word of God ( as presented in the Bible).
No, all those people are far too intelligent to believe in that nonsense!
But A) They wouldn't get in power if they declared themselves atheist
and B) It suits their agenda to have a great many of their citizens believing in the next world, the power of prayer and, rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:48 PM

"Sodium fluoride can not be made into explosives.
It is harmless.
There is no reason not to sell it to anyone."
As is white phosphorus according to you - pity you forgot to mention it to the Palestinian children who had their faces burned off
The west should never have traded with Assad in the first place no matter what
Having denied the existence of a delivery of officially confirmed small arms ammunition (sniper bullets)you are now claiming it is fine to trade with monsters - what kind of evil individual are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:34 PM

"They wouldn't get in power if they declared themselves atheist"

Wouldn't actually make any difference in this country or France, just for a start.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:35 PM

First of all, everybody is going off from the 'news' reports, as to what is happening and 'why'...WRONG!!...The REAL story isn't going to be found in any f the corporate owned media outlets...count on it!
That being said, I was leery about this whole thing, and especially Obama's 'red line' line that he borrowed from Netanyahu, in regards to Iran...There are a few possibilities of what is going on that nobody has been talking about.
That being said, do you think that the ultimate decision is going to be made for 'strategic interests'?, 'tactical interests and advantage'?, 'political interests'?, 'financial interests, and advantages'? and for whom??...or just plain inaptness?

When the reports first came out of the chemical attacks, the first thing that a lot of people did was question the validity of it, being as Bush pulled the same thing...BUT there may be another element, that people have NOT considered, that I know of.

We KNOW that Assad was pushing back the rebels, and gaining considerable ground...why would he use chemicals, and possibly drag us into it against himself???? What makes more sense, is that the rebels used them, to get the U.S. to unwittingly use that against Assad, thereby actually aiding the rebels...but then if the rebels 'won' they would also gain control of those weapons...not 'good'!
Now I'm NOT saying that's what went down, though it could be..but what I AM saying, is there is more in play, than anything we're hearing on the 'news', behind the scenes......
....I'm going to go play some music..........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:47 PM

GfS, you're right about that. "Who benefits?" is always the first question to ask.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:03 PM

2 years ago Assad was a problem ... now, the problem is more than Assad, way more than Assad ... it's evolved into a cesspool of inhumanity with forces of evil playing from every which angle .. the whole mess is way to complicated and military intervention will not solve the issue ... in all it will probability fuel more violence with the innocent being even more victimized and the genocide will continue.


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:10 PM

Hey Sock Puppet, you know that thread where you said that we'd keep each other company in 'hell'?..I'm surprised you didn't comeback and respond to the other posts that I did following your statement about that!

Take a look....I don't think I was too far off...AT ALL!

OK..Back to the Mid-East chess game....

..and off to the music room!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:34 PM

This whole business about the morality of chemical weapons is a red herring.
The U.S. used depleted uranium in Iraq, Agent Orange in Vietnam, White Phosphorous in Faluja and did the most immoral thing one could do, atomic
weapons in Japan.

If he goes in to Syria without the UN inspection team doing their job, (they are being forced to leave earlier than planned) he will incur the enmity of most every nation
in the world. It will have the opposite effect of making our country safe from terror
attacks. It will prolong the Syrian Civil War and give Al Quaeda an upper hand.
Invasion is a fool's errand.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:36 AM

What is particularly significant about the use of chemical weapons as a decider as to whether intervention is necessary in the case of any case such as this?
Even before the protests developed into civil war Assad's troops where massacring the citizens of Homs in their thousands - is there a significant difference between women with babies in arms being cut down by sniper fire in Homs (it was reported then that the infants were being deliberately targeted)and them dying from asphyxiation and chemical burns - it's only a matter of degree, the end result is the same - it should have been stopped then
If Syria had possessed a significant oil supply it certainly would have been, Russian and Chinese vetoes notwithstanding.
At the time of Homs, the BBC's 'Question Time' devoted a great deal of time to the subject - the four representative politicians overwhelmingly agreed and Lib-Dem David Steele summed up their view, "it was not in Britain's interests to become involved" (pretty much what is being said here, after the chemical attacks).
The only voice of opposition on the panel was the token 'light relief' on the programme, comedian, Steve Coogan, who made a stunning contribution.
I'm more than happy to fess up that I supported intervention then as I do now.
It would have forced the U.N. to over-ride the vetoes, Assad's attacks could have been prevented from escalating into civil war and the many thousands of innocent non-combatants need not have died - but of course, "it was not in our interest to become involved!"
Assad has not only been allowed to slaughter his own citizens, but he has run rings round the rest of the world and has all-but destroyed the credibility of the United Nations.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:05 AM

Incidentally, this is the "toothpaste" that Britain sold Assad
Jim Carroll

Fluoride is THE main ingredient in rat poison.
Fluoride is THE main ingredient in Sarin nerve gas.
Fluoride is THE main ingredient in Prozac.
Fluoride destroys the brain (accumulates the pineal gland), the bones, the organs and causes cancer.
Hitler and Stalin used it in concentration camps and gulags as mass control instrument to make the prisoners docile.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/10/31/

FLUORIDE, HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, AND FLUORINE
What are fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine?
Fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorides are chemically related. Fluorine is a naturally occurring, pale yellow-green gas with a sharp odor. Il combines with hydrogen to make hydrogen fluoride, a colorless gas. Hydrogen fluoride dissolves in waier to form hydrofluoric acid.
Fluorine also combines with metals to make fluorides such as sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride, both while solids. Sodium fluoride dissolves easily in water, hut calcium fluoride does not.
Fluorine and hydrogen fluoride are used to make certain chemical compounds. Hydrofluoric acid is used for etching glass. Fluorides are used in making steel, chemicals, ceramics, lubricants, dyes, plastics and pesticides (for ants and roaches). Fluorides are often added to drinking water supplies and to a variety of dental products, including toothpaste and mouth rinses, to prevent dental cavities.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW. A CITIZENS GUID TO BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR AGENTS & WEAPONS
What happens to fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine when they enter the environment?
• Fluorine can not be destroyed in the environment, it can only change its form. Fluorine forms salts with minerals in soil, and doesn't evaporate back into air as a gas.
• Hydrogen fluoride gas will be absorbed by rain and into clouds and fog to form hydrofluoric acid, which will fall to the ground.
• Fluorides if released to the air from volcanoes and industry are carried by wind and rain to nearby water, soil, and food sources.
• Fluorides in water and soil will form strong associations with sediment or soil particles.
• Fluorides will accumulate in plants and animals. In animals, the fluoride accumulates primarily in the bones or shell rather than in edible meat.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=q6arweDfwjUC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=Weapons+sodium+fluoride&source=bl&ots=PZkKfXNEaf&sig=3MEi49Yq

FLUORIDE: A KNOWN CHEMICAL WEAPON
February 19,1999. ALCOA Fined $750,000 by Commerce Department For Illegal Chemical Shipments.
Potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride are controlled because they can be used to make chemical weapons. These chemicals were added to the Department's control list in March 1991, but ALCOA's export compliance program failed to recognize and incorporate the change. There was no indication that in this case the chemicals were used for weapons purposes.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/effects.chem.weapon.precurs.htm


Also:
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.ie/2013/01/fluoride-known-chemical-weapon.html

http://rense.com/general79/hd3.htm

http://www.quintessentialpublications.com/tracyrtwyman/?p=2271

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:00 AM

Jim, white phosphorous is a very hazardous substance.
It is a lie that I would ever call it harmless.

Did any country in the whole world refuse to trade with Syria?
If not, why try to single out poor old Britain again?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:41 AM

"f not, why try to single out poor old Britain again?"
Enjoy
Jim Carroll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq04R-ejYws

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:33 AM

Military intervention will strengthen Al Quaeda and make Americans less safe as well
as promote an all out civil war in Syria as is the case in Iraq.

The solution is to advocate for the United Nations to have a response isolating Syria
and decrying the violence that is coming from there through Assad and the rebels.

For the U.S. to ignore or downgrade the U.N. in an advance attack is to prolong the
conflict maybe for decades. With the U.S. track record in Iraq (destruction of the nation)
and Afghanistan (the longest war in U.S. history), the outcome of a military strike is predictable.

If the U.N. is "weak" it is the responsibility of the world's countries including Britain and
the United States to strengthen it rather than attempt to destroy it.

Hitting Syria opens a Pandora's Box.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:10 PM

I think Obama was going to be criticized for any decision on this, but I rather approve of letting Congress do its job. I believe that's what most reasonable Americans wanted, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:18 PM

I know you built your hopes up Teribus, but it seems like the gas was Sarin. Sorry to disappoint.

Keith, is nerve gas really that much worse than everything else? You are pushing for war on little more than a question of semantics. Assad's dad and uncle between them slaughtered at least 10,000 people, mostly civilians, in 1982. More than 40,000 by some estimates. But his target was the Muslim Brotherhood, so no problem.

Mugabe enforced famine on the Ndebele element of his population, and the West was content that his wife's shopping trips to New York had been curtailed.

The US destroyed communities by the score with defoliants and squirted women and children with nepalm. Did those atrocities just involve the wrong kind of chemicals?

Even within recent weeks we have seen Egypt's army seize power and slaughter thousands of unarmed protesters, and the US will not even call it a coup.

Are the warmongers here seriously arguing that it is the means that matters and not the effect? We may assume that Obama, at least, has broken ranks with them. The Cameron experience has given him at least the possibility of a way out from his hollow and ill-judged red-line bluster.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:40 PM

Fair point Peter.
We are already seeing civilians slaughtered by conventional weapons, so what is the difference?

There is now a perception that a regime that takes that extra step will suffer a consequence.
If that perception is lost, it will not be a world changer, but the world will be a worse place.

Stringy, there is already an "an all out civil war in Syria" even worse than the one in Iraq.
Where have you been?

And, the UN is not weak, it is blocked from any action against Assad by Russia and China.
How could we "strengthen" it?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 01:45 PM

It is getting worse because the U.S. is helping it along by ignoring the U.N.
We could strengthen it by allowing the UN inspectors to do their work. Russia and China need to be heeded for their sensible approach in not going in trigger happy.
Also, it could easily be spread over the Middle East. I wouldn't say it's worse than Iraq
which has been utterly destroyed as a country. It's a different kind of destruction, in Iraq, it's slower acting and has assumed deterioration over time.

Another way to strengthen the UN would be to send in U.S. ambassadors who would
be participants without trying to superimpose U.S. policy and muscle the UN into
accepting a hegemonic foreign policy.

Also, a Palestinian state would help as well.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 01:52 PM

Stringers, see my posts in the 'BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria' thread...and see if it becomes clearer. It will just take you a moment.

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:18 PM

It is getting worse because the U.S. is helping it along by ignoring the U.N.
No US is not.
We could strengthen it by allowing the UN inspectors to do their work.
They have done it.
All they will tell us is that Sarin was used, which we already know.
They will not tell us who did it because Russia and China refused that mandate.
Russia and China need to be heeded for their sensible approach in not going in trigger happy.
They just supply Assad all his weapons and block any attempt to restrain his mass-murder spree.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:47 PM

"they will they will tell us is that Sarin was used,"
Isn't the fluoride that Britain sold to Assad the major element in the manufacture of Sarin - 'course it was
This thread (01 Sep 13 - 04:05 AM)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:36 PM

Methinks that you are drifting into minutia...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:56 PM

For Mr Obama, the issue is now about "saving face".....and that is the most dangerous phase of all.

I think the Western nations need to understand that the power, the influence and the money have all leached Eastwards.

This phenomenon is simply Capitalism at work, don't be surprised, don't be angry, you understand about free market competition...don't you?
You aught to, because you have supported a system built on inequality, the politics of envy, and mass fraud for over a century.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 05:24 PM

Russia and Iran have their political reasons for defending the Assad regime and a lot of that has to do with U.S. and Israeli complicity in the war machine. akenaton has it right.
The only solution to this problem is for a political (actually it goes beyond political because
it involves economics) reform movement to take place in the U.S. that limits the role
of the military industrial complex and corporate control of the government, phony trade deals and putting the brakes on the expansionist role of U.S. allies such as Israel.

Also, a recognition that for years the U.S. supported Assad and Hussein, allowing them to be in FDR's words "our bastards".

The UN inspectors have not been allowed to complete their work. To say otherwise is
a lie. It's the same pattern that took place in Iraq seeking "weapons of mass destruction"
by the Bush administration to gin up another war.

To understand how the UN inspector's role has been sabotaged, read the accounts of
Hans Blix during the Iraq debacle.

The invasion of Syria by the US will escalate another civil war and the "Cold War" with Russia and China. They are afraid of U.S. hegemony in the region.

Then there's the little problem of oil.

It's a mess for which the only solution is for the U.S. and it's allies to strengthen their role in foreign policy by being consistent with democratic ideals. We need to stop using
depleted uranium, white phosphorous, agent orange and lethal drones, cluster bombs
and reduce our nuclear capabilities. Also remember that in Syria we see specifically
a religious war between Alawites and Sunnis as well as religious factionalism in other
Mid East countries. Most wars are built upon religious enmities.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 05:29 PM

The Arab League is calling on the world to take action against Syria for it's aggression against it's people, says it would back a U.S. strike on Syria if the Syrian people did.

Arab League calls for UN measures against Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 07:57 PM

"Methinks that you are drifting into minutia..."
You are claiming that the fact that Britain has sold the main component of Sarin gas to the Assad regime is "thread drift" on a chemical weapons thread.
Come on "Sanitary" not even you are that thick!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:21 PM

Sorry, BooBad, you evidently missed this part of the article:
"Despite a strong call to action by the League, some Arab countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria remained opposed to the final decision to call for foreign military action."

Also, it is only Saudi Arabia, not "The League" which says it would support a U.S. strike.

Read slowly & aim for comprehension, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:31 PM

"The Arab League is calling for the United Nations and the international community to take steps against Syria over its recent alleged gas attack.

Arab foreign ministers arrived in Cairo on Sunday for an urgent Arab League meeting to discuss the Syrian crisis and the potential military strike on the country.

A final resolution was passed Sunday urging the UN and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for."

The League's foreign ministers also said those responsible for the attack should face trial, as other "war criminals" have."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:43 PM

"The Arab League is calling for the United Nations and the international community to take steps against Syria over its recent alleged gas attack.

Arab foreign ministers arrived in Cairo on Sunday for an urgent Arab League meeting to discuss the Syrian crisis and the potential military strike on the country.

A final resolution was passed Sunday urging the UN and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for."

The League's foreign ministers also said those responsible for the attack should face trial, as other "war criminals" have."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 03:19 AM

Why should action be taken because chemical weapons were used?

Because that is the long established accepted response to the use of such weapons. During the "Cold War" NATO renounced the use of such weapons, the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies did not. The latter were told in no uncertain terms that use by them of chemical or biological weapons would immediately result in tactical nuclear strikes - this "accepted" response was relayed to Saddam Hussein by the Soviets in 1990 in the run up to Desert Storm and it was Saddam's fear of a tactical nuclear response that stopped him from using chemical weapons in 1991 when we knew for certain that he definitely did possess them and had the means to deliver them.

The UN inspectors went into Syria with a fairly specific and time limited mandate. In this respect the weapons inspectors job in Syria cannot be compared to the task set for either UNSCOM or UNMOVIC in Iraq. The UN inspectors have completed their task in Syria, they have inspected the sites of alleged chemical attacks inside the country and samples taken are currently being analysed. Unlike Iraq the weapons inspectors who have just returned from Syria have got all the information they need and within the next few weeks they will issue at least a preliminary report indicating:

1) What was used
2) How it was weaponised
3) How it was delivered

From the above will come the best indication of "who dunnit".

Chemical weapons used on the 21st August in Damascus - eliciting no strong response provides encouragement to any "rogue regime" with its back to the wall - you do not have to worry about any response by the USA, or whoever, spurring terrorist groups into using the stuff, if they had possessed any they would have used it long before now without blinking an eye.

Jom, insists that the sodium fluoride that Syria was sold from the UK last January was immediately used to manufacture the Sarin Gas used in the attack on the 21st August - he states this without producing any evidence to support his contention - and he expects to be universally believed, purely on his say so - sorry not convinced. It would be interesting to know how much sodium fluoride is normally purchased by Syria, it would be interesting to know how much is used for water purification and the dozens of other perfectly rational innocent uses of the chemical. It would then be interesting to see how quantities match up, before leaping to the conclusions reached by Jom "the impartial".

Kerry has talked of and described in detail the "trail" of evidence that the US has gathered in the 72 hours leading up to the attack:

a) Increased activity at a known chemical weapons storage site
b) Transport between that storage site and known Syrian Army bases
c) Intercepted communications and telephone conversations between the Assad regime, the storage site and the Syrian Army
d) The subsequent launching of rockets and artillery fire from areas under the control of the Assad regime by the Syrian Army.

By waiting until the UN's weapons inspectors deliver their preliminary findings, the US Government can specify what it was that was transported, they can state what all those conversations were about. They can completely explode the myth being promoted by Russia that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own people.

Now why would the Assad regime resort to using such weapons? I can think of a number of reasons both tactically and strategically as to why he would risk using them, especially if at the end of all this he expects to remain in power, which I am sure he does - and none of those Assad regime goals will be derailed by the USA launching a few cruise missiles into "selected" targets in Syria.

World War Three will not be started in order to save President Bashar al-Assad in Syria - basically he is not worth it to either Russia or China, because they know full well that at the moment neither, even combined, are strong enough to defeat the USA if push came to shove, they simply have got far too much to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 05:26 AM

I am much more concerned with the USA starting WW3 than either Russia or China.
As you say Mr T, the Eastern block have too much to lose, the reptiles who lead and control the West have nothing to lose?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 05:48 AM

Don't you also think that Mr Assad had "too much to lose" by using nerve gas?

I still think accidental detonation is the most reasonable scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 07:16 AM

"Don't you also think that Mr Assad had "too much to lose" by using nerve gas?"

I am fairly certain that Bashar Al-Assad is under instructions from Moscow to finish this as quickly as he can - and by any means at his disposal - Saddam Hussein did not baulk at using chemical weapons when he thought he had to - so what would make Bashar al-Assad any different?

"I still think accidental detonation is the most reasonable scenario."

"Accidental detonation"?? So I see that you have swung back to it being chemical/biological armed munitions that the Free Syrian Army or one of their allied groups got their hands on and it was these that were hit in a conventional artillery barrage in Damascus on the 21st of August? Why the change back from stating that it was chemical storage cylinders that had been hit?

There are a number of drawbacks with your theory that it was chemical/biological armed munitions:

1: Those bits of kit are normally empty right up until the last possible moment.

2: Care to explain why the Free Syrian Army would bother to carry away items of military hardware that they could not possibly use? They have no Grad Rocket Launchers, they have no heavy artillery

One thing the UN weapons inspectors will have will be the dispersion pattern of the chemical agent and the limiting extent of the area affected - that will differ and indicate whether the weapon was deployed as it was designed to ("deliberate strike using chemical/biological weapons) or whether it was caused by a leak. A sympathetic detonation would destroy the chemical agent. No doubt in the course of the next few weeks we will discover which is the case.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 07:48 AM

I'm sure that Saddam's use of chemical agents were thought to be free from "repercussions" as he had Western support at that time, Russia and China were weak and sure enough the West made no move to remove him from power till after 9/11, an event which had absolutely nothing to do with the late Mr Hussein and occurred many years later?

I'm a it confused about your talk of "chemical storage cylinders" versus armed munitions, I am aware that you know much more about these matters than I do, but I suppose sarin COULD be delivered at reasonably close range by using mortars?
So is it not possible that the terrorists had obtained a small stock of gas which was subsequently spread by detonation of conventional high explosive?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 07:51 AM

""I still think accidental detonation is the most reasonable scenario.""

Yep! A missile fell over and rolled onto the back of a truck at the storage facility, then nobody noticed, despite the codes and serial numbers and most likely the particular colour of the warhead.

So it was loaded on the launcher, armed and fired by a crew of blind men.

Naah!........It was deliberate!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:18 AM

UN just announced that is has found chemicals and should be able to identify the source
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:37 AM

All the chemicals used in munitions will presumably BELONG to the government, that is not the issue, how they were spread is the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:55 AM

Their mandate, thanks to Russia, does not allow them to say who did it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 09:04 AM

I never trusted Blix.....and I was right, he could have stopped Bush and Blair in their tracks, but for some unknown reason he did not.
Perhaps the Russians don't trust the present inspectorate?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 11:19 AM

Blix did blow the whistle. Blair and Bush were too powerful at the time. We see what
happens to whistle blowers today.

The Russians are defending their turf by bases in Syria and Iran. They are afraid of
American superiority in weaponry and a reigniting of the Cold War.

All this sabre rattling is a distraction from the real economic and social problems the
U.S. has at home.

We don't know who did it really. It could have been a plant or Assad but the information is not available to us so no legitimate evidence can emerge.

There are those who can profit financially by bombing Syria. That evidence is clear.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 04:27 PM

Sarin is but a red herring! It matters not a damn if innocent children are murdered by nerve gas or naphalm bombs because the end result is the same!
If Russia and China were onside, this atrocity could have been stopped long ago! The international community can start putting an end to this by the UN Security Council declaring a demand that UN Peacekeeping forces enforce an immidiate cease-fire. If China or Russia dare to use their veto power to stop this action upcomming Olympics in either country should be withdrawn from them and moved to places where facilities already exist. A country such as Canada already has these facilities and how wonderful it would be if Harper had the balls to make such an offer to the world! The Middle East has been a basket case for eons and such will continue as long as more powerful nations keep playing games!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 05:57 AM

Akenaton - to manufacture chemical or biological warfare agents is remarkably easy - to "weaponise" them is extremely difficult.

The load that killed all those people in Damascus on the 21st of August will be found to have been delivered courtesy of the Syrian Army/Assad supporters by either a rocket or by artillery shell - indicators of that will be:

1: Dispersal pattern and area covered

2: The fact that it did not linger

Both would be markedly different if either a storage cylinder or a loaded rocket(s) had been hit and had leaked. In the case of the latter the explosion and extreme heat resulting from the detonation of whatever hit the loaded rockets would have destroyed the chemical or biological payload immediately.

US does not have any Sarin weaponry in its arsenal, the USA is however the "site of choice" for many countries for disposal of these agents and most of those agents are transported to the USA for destruction in pressurised storage vessels, not in fused shells or in rocket warheads.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:22 AM

How do you know that the US has no sarin in it's arsenal? There is no transparency any more when it comes to these important issues. The American people have been lied to before.


It is important to allow the UN inspectors to complete their job.

The only solution at hand is a rapprochement between Putin and Obama.

The warmongering Zionists are eager to get into this war with the U.S.

"There is no military solution".................John Kerry.

The stats regarding the casualties need to be examined and cross-referenced, not cobbled together by the Obama administration.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:26 AM

How do you know that the US has no sarin in it's arsenal?

Because you could not keep it secret.
Soldiers would have to be trained in its use.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:35 AM

"Soldiers would have to be trained in its use."
Utter invented nonsense - over a dozen years ago Japanese UNTRAINED terrorists made a devastating attack on a tube train using Sarin - and guess what, nobody knew they had it!
Stop making up utter garbage to defend chemical warfare
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:43 AM

And you know they did not practice the act Jim?
I bet they did.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:57 AM

Well it's not for the public to know whether sarin or other weapons of mass destruction have been used because the Pentagon can cover this up without difficulty. Right now there are implications that the CIA might have been involved. The evidence one way or another
is not in or available to the public. We were sold a bill of goods to go to war in Iraq and this is a model of how the Syrian question might be handled.

Who used them has not been answered conclusively and for what reason. To say otherwise
is mere speculation without concrete evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 11:36 AM

"How do you know that the US has no sarin in it's arsenal?"

Because in the time I spent in the forces:

1: Not once did I ever see any NATO chemical or biological munitions
2: Not once did I ever see any manuals or procedures containing anything related to the handling, arming or firing of chemical or biological munitions.
3: The UK unilaterally renounced use of such weapons in 1956, the US took the position of retaining what stocks they held as a contingency in case the Soviets or Warsaw Pact Forces used theirs - The NATO decision to respond to any chemical attack with immediate use of tactical nuclear weapons obviated the need for US Forces to consider any use of chemical weapons.

Currently at various facilities in the USA there are thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents - all awaiting destruction under the terms of the Chemical Warfare Convention. As of January 2013 78% of all chemical and biological warfare agents declared by the 189 states who have ratified the ban have been destroyed. There are two states who have signed and have yet to ratify the treaty they are Israel and Burma. There are five states who have not signed the treaty, they are: Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan and Syria.

As for the CIA or the Pentagon squirreling away Sarin or any other nerve agent would be difficult as all stocks are held under the control of an independent international body who presumably keeps track of what they hold and what they destroy each day - if any was missing they would know about it.

The UN inspectors in Syria HAVE completed their job and brought the evidence they collected back with them for analysis and investigation - What else do you think they have to do? What work is left outstanding?

As far as I know there is nothing apart from idiotic conspiracy theories implicating the CIA with any Sarin attack.

The one mentioned by Jom "The Impartial", the Tokyo Subway Sarin Attack in 1995, shows how implausible Akenaton's theory of a leak is. The five "Untrained" terrorists in Tokyo carried 900 ml of sarin in sachets onto five trains on the Tokyo subway system at the height of the rush hour. They dropped the sachets on the floor of the subway cars and punctured them repeatedly - the terrorists left the subway and as a result of their attack 13 people died - in Damascus the number killed was almost 1,500. While the Tokyo terrorists were well researched amateurs they were were also highly intelligent, but as I stated previously it is easy to manufacture a nerve agent or a poisonous gas - it is extremely difficult to weaponise it - proof of that 13 death in the massively overcrowded confines of the Tokyo subway system compared to nearly 1,500 in a suburb of Damascus that was under bombardment by the Syrian army, obviously the latter had a better system of spreading their deadly cloud.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 12:13 PM

Two words, Mr. T:

Black Ops.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: sapper82
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 01:02 PM

Don't know if anyone has put forward the possibility that them attack was an un-authorised action carried out by a rogue element of the pro-Assad forces.

Whatever the outcome of this conflict, the ones who will continue to suffer will be the people of Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:43 PM

One story is that Assad's brother did it as a reprisal for the attack on their convoy.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:52 PM

The tactical advantage of nerve gas is that it will kill the enemy without destroying infrastructure. That aside it is a weapon of little advantage so its use in Syria by government forces makes no sense! If it was used in an area where bombs and munitions would damage important government equipment there may be a reason. If you just want to kill innocent people or a perceived enemy bombs and bullets will do the job just fine! In the name of God war is justified! Methinks it's time for God to take a stand if He exists!

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

"And you know they did not practice the act Jim?"
And you know they did?
They were terrorist nutters, not the soldiers you suggested they needed to be.
They managed to keep the fact that they owned the stuff secret, which you have just claimed was not possible.
Of course they practiced - and we still didn't know about them until after the attack!
Are you really so thick that you can't see this totally undermines your latest defence of chemical weapons?
You are making it up as you go along - you have no knowledge whatever of the technique of using Sarin; up to now you have described its main component as harmless at toothpaste unless you dropped a bag of it on your foot, that they didn't issue licences for it, that it was legal for them to sell it (then again, on the other thraed, that it was harmless as toothpaste again, despite the fact that you were fully aware of it's uses) that the information you had bene given was "out-of-date".....
You now appear to be suggesting that a bunch of terrorist nutters needed to possess the same skills as a trained army in order to use it - have you gone (further) round the twist?
I hope the Arms Industry pay you well; you may be crap as their gofer, trying to persuade us that it's o.k. to sell weapons to dictators, but your entertainment value is beyond price - and you wind up susceptibility is far better than any Tri-ang toy my mam and dad could afford to buy me.
Keep it up, you're doing great
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 05:02 PM

Jim, if you want your forces to use chemical weapons, you have to train them.
You also have to manufacture them.
Neither activity can be kept secret for long.
The Japanese terrorists made their own stuff.
You can be certain they rehearsed their quite complex plan when they hit the subway.
An earlier small scale attack, which was unsuccessful, also amounted to a rehearsal for the main event.

Flouride is not particularly toxic, but like anything there is a safe limit.
It is in toothpaste and drinking water because it is good for your teeth.

You are starting to look irrational again Jim.
How you must hate us.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 07:30 PM

"The warmongering Zionists are eager to get into this war with the U.S."

Let's make it about the Jews....yeah, that's the ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 07:41 PM

""If Russia and China were onside, this atrocity could have been stopped long ago!""

A good perspective Sandy McLean.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 07:56 PM

Rather than looking broadly, independently and logically at each issue, some folks seem to choose and adhere to "their favourite" from one Middle East issue (and thread) to the next - much like rooting for a side/team on a football game. Say the wrong thing that challenges the involvement of their team" and these "mud-folkies" brand and attack you.

There is plenty of blame to go around on every side and on every issue. The main issue is it involves peoples lives, folks, it's not a football game.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 08:00 PM

BTW, that was just a personal observation to stimulate discussion (since I rarely get into these type of discussions, as they seem fruitless and frustrating. It was not intended to wage thread-war on any other site poster (though I suspect it could lead to some "dickhead" making a personal attack on me).

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:51 PM

Per Daniel Seaman, Israeli official in charge of promoting Israel's image online:

"I am sick of the Japanese, 'Human Rights' and 'Peace' groups the world over holding their annual self-righteous commemorations for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims," he wrote. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression. You reap what you sow..."

Absolutely priceless-"you reap what you sow." These Zionist arseholes just don't get it, do they?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 01:30 AM

Stringsinger: "All this sabre rattling is a distraction from the real economic and social problems the
U.S. has at home."

Reminiscent of the elements before the fall of Rome, huh?
(hope you know your history)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 01:35 AM

Three words Mr. F

To what end?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 02:17 AM

"They were terrorist nutters, not the soldiers you suggested they needed to be. They managed to keep the fact that they owned the stuff secret, which you have just claimed was not possible."

Take a look in more detail at those "terrorist nutters" - Senior Doctors of Medicine and highly qualified Physicists - making their batches of Sarin would not be difficult. Aum, the "Terrorist Organisation they belonged to established a Chemical Brigade as part of their Ministry of Science and Technology - I think that you could assume that apart from the grandiose labels they were taking what they were doing seriously enough.

"Of course they practiced - and we still didn't know about them until after the attack!

Really? I would have thought that their earlier attempt would have attracted some attention wouldn't you? The Tokyo Subway attack took place on the 20th March 1995.

"Aum Shinrikyo first began their attacks on 27 June 1994 in Matsumoto, when the cult released a cloud of sarin in a residential area which injured 500 people and killed seven. The Japanese police had already discovered at Aum's main compound a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison. Later investigation showed that Aum not only created the sarin used in the subway attacks, but had committed previous chemical and biological weapons attacks, including a previous attack with sarin that had killed eight and injured 144."

From the following, if you propose to make illegal the selling of individual components then you punish the world for potential misuse by a tiny minority - utterly idiotic view point.

"Are you really so thick that you can't see this totally undermines your latest defence of chemical weapons?

You are making it up as you go along - you have no knowledge whatever of the technique of using Sarin; up to now you have described its main component as harmless at toothpaste unless you dropped a bag of it on your foot, that they didn't issue licences for it, that it was legal for them to sell it (then again, on the other thraed, that it was harmless as toothpaste again, despite the fact that you were fully aware of it's uses) that the information you had bene given was "out-of-date".....

Fortunately for the population of Tokyo the terrorists lack of expertise in being able to weaponise their nerve agent helped limit the damage done. Sodium fluoride has many uses, the vast bulk of them entirely peaceful and beneficial - under your recommendations nothing would ever be sold on the premise that you couldn't or wouldn't be able to guarantee what it would, or could, be ultimately used for.

"You now appear to be suggesting that a bunch of terrorist nutters needed to possess the same skills as a trained army in order to use it"

Well yes that is about the truth of it as demonstrated by the results obtained. A bunch of terrorist nutters in the course of three attacks in densely populated areas succeed in killing 28 people with sarin while the Syrian Army loyal to President Bashar Al-Assad allegedly succeeded in killing 1429 people in one attack alone. Forces loyal to and under the command of Saddam Hussein succeeded in killing thousands - you tell me which of these deploys the agent more effectively, terrorist nutters or armed forces personnel specifically trained in using the weaponised version of any chemical or biological warfare agent?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:05 AM

"Jim, if you want your forces to use chemical weapons, you have to train them."
You have the evidence, you have offered only opinions.
I am fascinated that anybody should have made it their hobby to defend international war crimes and atrocities - it takes a special sort of person, I suppose.
As I said, keep up the good work - absolutely priceless!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:07 AM

Sorry - too early in the morning
Shouls read "opinions and inventions"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:34 AM

I am fascinated that anybody should have made it their hobby to defend international war crimes and atrocities
Me too!
Who on earth is this person?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 08:29 AM

"Who on earth is this person?"
The feller who has persistently defended sales of chemicals to Syria, has described suggestions that military intervention as "gung-ho", or "leftie", or "miltarism"... (presumably including Obama, Cameron, Hague et al in this description), has insisted that the chemicals licensed for sale to Assad were "harmless" and having been shown otherwise, has moved on to another thread to make the same claims, has suggested that is is prejudiced to single out Britain because "everybody else was doing it", has proposed that Assad should be provided with "riot control gear" and has supported his being sold armoured cars and water cannon.
On identifying past British sales of small arms ammunition as "sniper bullets" at the time Assad's thugs were cutting down women and children in the street, possibly with these "sniper bullets" he then entered into six conflicting explanations why they were not "sniper bullets, finally settling on "I thought we were talking about Libya".
On a currently running thread he has all but driven the subject into the ground with his long-running and deliberately obstructive claim that the Irish famine was "nuffin' to do with Britain".
Whenever the name "Israel" is mentioned he has entered into a long defence of the mass slaughter of refugees, chemical warfare, illegal land seizure, attempts at mass starvation, the killing of innocent civilians, the forcible moving of nomadic communities onto toxic land......
Irish violently sectarian marches he has described as "fun" and has attributed the long running violence caused by those marches as down to "bored children".
In the past, his causes have included the description of violently Antisemitic poetry written and distributed by members of the upper classes at the time Hitler was embarking on the annihilation of six million Jews as "harmless".         
He first came to public notice with his suggestion that immigrants with aids should not be entitled to medical attention......
The list goes on and on.
A reoccurring symptom of this disorder seems to be either outright denial (as is about to happen again) despite the fact that all this is archived), or an urge to blame somebody else – a malignantly evil force driving him to do it.
Now call me picky, but I suggest that this is somewhat over-the-top extremism verging on obsession.
I'm sure that the lovely Detective Sergeant Beckett would have detected a pattern to all this and I have no doubt that the psychiatric profession has a name for it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 08:40 AM

I do not understand your need to make up lies about me and about Britain Jim.
I fear you may be mentally ill.

None of that stuff is true.
Britain sold no sniper ammunition to Syria.
I expressed no opinion at all about the famine.
etc.
It is all in your head Jim.

If you want to talk about me, use pms.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 08:40 AM

I am fascinated that this very important subject is not being better discussed.

If the West goes for "regime change" as they did in Libya and Iraq, obviously life will be very much worse for the Syrian people.
Iraq and Libya have descended into lawlessness and terror, the same fate awaits the Syrians especially minority groups so beloved of the Mudcat "liberals", but more importantly, as Sanity has noted, Russia has bases there and would be involved in protecting those bases.

What retaliation can we expect in return for supporting or in the case of the USA instigating an attack?

Would it be military or economic? Would China become involved?
I'm sure most....even here, would see it as a no win scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 08:51 AM

How much worse can it get?
Over 100 000 dead already and rising fast every day.
2 million refugees have crossed the border to the despair of neighbours and millions more displaced inside.
Winter is coming and the misery can only intensify.
Doing nothing is simply no longer an option, but as long as Assad remains, nothing can be done.

But then again, a strike might indeed make things worse.
Our leaders have no more idea than we do.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 09:39 AM

"I fear you may be mentally ill."
Keith - everything and more I have described is on record - including on four current threads; it is all a matter of record
Your behaviour on this forum can only be described as extreme filibustering in support of extremist causes.
It makes rational discussion of any topic you set your mind on virtually impossible; even ignoring you doesn't work as you pursue your cause and every single person who disagrees with you with an obsessive tenacity - you invariably end up 'the last man standing' with the greatest number of individual postings.
PMs don't work as they invariably end up being an extreme repetition of your postings with the gloves off, such as with your bilious outpourings on Muslim 'implants'.
It has already been the death of numerous threads and is gradually destroying this forum.
To say you have expressed "no opinion at all about the famine" regarding a topic you have all but destroyed, yet is still on full view for all to access, is utterly and blatantly insane.
By the way, to describe verified criticism of Britain as being "mentally ill" is a dead giveaway - sorry about that.
I'll leave you to your work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 10:02 AM

PMs avoid spoiling threads for others.
I do not put "billious outpourings" in them.
Another lie.
Everything is indeed on record here, but no-one will be looking.
No-one cares about us Jim.
Use pm.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 10:58 AM

We are not being given appropriate evidence through a deception. The numbers reputedly given as victims of sarin have been inflated to gin up the war. We don't even really know that sarin was used. This is propaganda blown up to incite invasion. The Israelis are launching missiles to punctuate this point. Remember yellow cake and WMD's?

The UN inspectors have not been given ample time to make scientific determinations and the Obama is thwarting their efforts in the same way Bush did in Iraq to bypass the UN and act unilaterally plunging America into another hapless debacle. The consequences will be "boots on the ground" and innocent American soldiers giving their lives for nothing. Kerry is misleading the public, a tragic reversal of his stance in Vietnam. Someone must have bought him out.

"Mission creep" is a hallmark of military propaganda making the munitions makers wealthy while so many Americans are destitute. The consequences of an invasion far outweigh the prudent caution resulting in a rise of Al Quaeda in the Rebel ranks which Obama and Kerry are hypocritically supporting. There are no moderates left in the Rebel ranks, an out-and-out lie manufactured for another Bush war. These Rebels are Islamic Jihadists, Al Quaeda and Al Nousra, the very ones who reputedly brought down the twin towers on 911. They want an Islamic Syria with Sharia Law.

Israel is licking it's chops to bomb Iran and the widening of this war will make that available with U.S. backing.

The warmongers are in control of the megaphone and all sanity has left the political arena except for a few stalwart and courageous dissenters.

Once again, the American public is being hoodwinked and their tax dollars extracted
for a meaningless incursion into insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 11:58 AM

Good man Frank...well said.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:28 PM

Pimp my war:

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday's hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes," Kerry said. "They have. That offer is on the table."

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

"In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we've done it previously in other places, they'll carry that cost," Kerry said. "That's how dedicated they are at this. That's not in the cards, and nobody's talking about it, but they're talking in serious ways about getting this done.

The Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:34 PM

Stringsinger is way off the mark, as usual, about who is warmongering.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:53 PM

I got a better idea - let's have the U.S. pay the Arab countries to take care of it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:59 PM

Ake, thank you.

There are some on this thread who really know what's going on. I think we can
all sidestep the U.S./Israel propaganda which got us into Iraq.

The invasion of Syria is a war crime. Assad is a mad man and an invasion will
strengthen his hand. The Rebels are not reliable.

Russia and Iran have stated they think the Rebels might have used sarin. We don't
really know the truth in spite of what John Kerry says. He has been shown to be
untrustworthy on this issue by hypocritically posing as a Winter Soldier in the case of Vietnam and changing his stripes on the issue of Syria.

I don't think you can trust any of the countries involved for correct information
since the agendas are quite clear.

By downgrading the role of the UN via the inspectors, the U.S. and Israel have
isolated themselves from the rest of the world community.

Britain was smart to have declined from supporting this redux of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 05:22 PM

People power Frank, the politicians realised this would not be tolerated by the electorate. Cameron and Hague were defeated, and I hope your representatives can read the runes.....Rescuing Mr Obama and his administration, is not worth all the terror and destruction which will ensue from the removal of Mr Assad.

Somewhere along the way, common sense must take precedent over "liberal" ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 05:41 PM

Ake, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The inference that there are only warmongers
that are acceptable is totally unacceptable. Israel's launching of missiles and joint military exercises with the U.S. in an area which is a tinder box is irresponsible. That's warmongering. It doesn't stop Assad who thrives on the blood and gore of war.
The U.S. through invasion is giving him exactly what he wants, a martyr's wreath around his neck and a so-called surgical strike will not impede his use of chemical weapons in the future. If anything it would make a hero out of him.

"liberal" ideology has been perverted by the "neo-liberal" agendas. The warmongers in Washington have somehow returned to a nostalgia for military might that was prevalent in the Second World War or in what they perceived as the heroics in Vietnam or Korea.
McCain and Kerry may have carried with them a kind of PTSD. Kerry's incursion into
Cambodia shouldn't be ignored.

It has to be said that warmongers in Washington are using the military solution to
aggrandize their power politically. This is not a moral position as they would have you
believe. If the American public protests loudly enough, they could change their minds
in a New York minute but as long as they can fool you into this escapade they retain
political power unequaled in times of peace.

The ideological weapons in this war are more lethal than sarin gas.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 06:15 PM

Wonder what happened with Obama and Putin? Here's your answer.

Putin rejects invasion

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 02:45 AM

Israel's launching of missiles and joint military exercises with the U.S. in an area which is a tinder box is irresponsible.

My understanding is that they launched one missile, towards Israel, and intercepted it to test their defences.
That is not irresponsible.
It would be irresponsible not to.

Obama says Syria WILL be hit.
Assad has implied that he will retaliate against Israel and Hezbollah stated unequivocally that they would.
Israel must anticipate an attack upon its cities.

Israel is blameless in all this.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 03:11 AM

"Israel is blameless in all this."
Aren't they always?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 04:02 AM

"Israel is blameless in all this."

Do you challenge that observation?
If so please indicate Israel's culpability in Syria's implosion.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 05:20 AM

"The inference that there are only warmongers that are acceptable is totally unacceptable. Israel's launching of missiles and joint military exercises with the U.S. in an area which is a tinder box is irresponsible. That's warmongering."

I believe that the exercises you refer to are are being carried out at sea off the coast of Israel and that the missiles being fired are being fired to replicate/simulate missiles being fired into Israel from Syria, or Lebanon, by either the Assad regime or by Hezbollah (Haven't they already declared that they will do this in the event of a strike by the US? - Or when they said that were they only jest joshin')

Verifying that your anti-missile systems are up to snuff after having been openly threatened seems a pretty prudent thing to do to me and in no way can exercising a purely defensive system be construed as "warmongering" - which I note Stringsinger specifically does not accuse Hezbollah of - wonder why.

"It doesn't stop Assad who thrives on the blood and gore of war."

A quick cable or e-mail addressed - Attn: Bashar Al-Assad stating that the next gas attack results immediately in something being launched directly at you that goes bang might dampen his ardour for blood and gore.

"The U.S. through invasion is giving him exactly what he wants, a martyr's wreath around his neck and a so-called surgical strike will not impede his use of chemical weapons in the future. If anything it would make a hero out of him."

What US invasion? No such thing has been proposed by either the POTUS or the Pentagon - it is you who are being alarmist based upon absolutely nothing. A surgical strike with clear and unambiguous forewarning of intent to take out the Ba'athist leadership in Syria would most certainly impede any future use of such chemical weapons on the part of the Assad Regime.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 07:13 AM

"Do you challenge that observation?"
You wind up like a clockwork toy Keith
Not a comment on Israel, the facts speak for themselves - just one on you.
Your days as a Mossad agent are over, nobody takes you seriously any more
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:12 AM

Strinsinger has mentioned Israel and "Zionists" a few times in this context.
He clearly does think that Israel has done something.
I am pleased that you agree with me on Israel being blameless, if not on your belief that an actual invasion would be a good thing!
I wonder how many here can take that seriously, you gung-ho old Blimp you.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:21 AM

Congress passed first stage of 'Blimp' Obamas bill on military intervention
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:24 AM

Obama has ruled out an invasion.
He is not that much of a Blimp!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:56 AM

There is one and only one response that all Americans (including the usual gang of idiots here) will support that will not threaten escalation toward nuclear war.

Operation Ball Buster:

16 Navy seals in noise dampening slippers and 4 NFL kickers with cleats sneak into Hassad's bedroom and duck tape him spread eagled for the 4 NFL kickers to kick King Hassad in the balls every ten seconds for as long as time allows.



PS Let McCain go on the mission so he can die a hero, and let his military record say something other than being a prisoner or having a rocket from his jet set fire to a US aircraft carrier.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:22 AM

" Let McCain go on the mission so he can die a hero, and let his military record say something other than being a prisoner or having a rocket from his jet set fire to a US aircraft carrier."

What a complete and utter load of rubbish Donuel

Now please correct me if I am in error in any of the following:

1: Lt-Cdr John McCain flew a Skyhawk A-4E (Aircaft No: 416)
2: The M32 "Zuni" Rocket that initiated the incident was accidentally discharged due to an electrical fault from a deck parked Macdonnell-Douglas F-4B Phantom II (Aircraft No: 110) - most definitely not Lt-Cdr John McCain's aircraft.
3: The rocket hit the wing mounted external fuel tank on Skyhawk A-4E (Aircraft No: 405) parked but awaiting launch piloted by Lt-Cdr Fred D. White - the missile did not detonate but the roket motor igniited the fuel escaping from the fuel tank
4: The aircraft parked to the left of White's Skyhawk on the flight deck was McCain's Skyhawk.
5: Truth of the matter is - apart from escaping from the carnage wrought - John McCain had nothing whatsoever to do with starting any fire.

Now what remnains to be seen is whether or not you possess the integrity to either retract the statement or offer any apology.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:31 AM

Also, McCain is opposing this intervention.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:36 AM

I take that back.
Thinking of someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:55 AM

Two interesting letters below from today's 'Times' (London)
The second makes complete sense to me, the second is a remarkable statement considering who it comes from.
"Thinking of someone else."
First time for everything - thinking, that is!
"Still, after much jockeying over the exact wording, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Syria in a vote that avoided party lines, with Democrats and Republicans on both sides. The action cleared the way for a vote in the full Senate, likely next week.
The committee voted 10-7 in favor of a compromise resolution that sets a 60-day limit on any engagement in Syria, with a possible 30-day extension, and bars the use of U.S. troops on the ground for combat operations."
Jim Carroll

Sir. Your leading article (Sept 3)
about Syria and chemical weapons refer" to the need "to uphold international norms and legal prohibitions that have held since 1925 on the use of chemical weapons". Your editorial memory is curiously selective. The West has in the past turned a blind eye to the us of chemical weapon". In 1988 Saddam Hussein used mustard gas
and sarin against Iranian troops killing 20,000 and leaving 100.000 wounded. A recent article in the US
magazine Foreign Policy claimed that US officials who gave Iraq intelligence about Iranian troop movements, did so in the knowledge that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons. The Iranians even flew some victims to British hospitals and tried to raise the issue in the UN. The West was indifferent. You are right: the use of chemical
weapons is, indeed, horrific and unacceptable. But if you wish to carry conviction with your arguments, should you not at least acknowledge the West's position in the past has been woefully far from consistent?
Lord Lamont
House of Lords

Sir, You call for a military response in Syria. But why a military response? One would have to be sure that a military response did more good than harm. Lobbing relatively small quantities of high explosives on to hardened targets in Syria (which is all that cruise missiles can achieve) is merely a gesture, and one that might produce
many civilian casualties. To do more than this would be it alter the balance of power in Syria in favour of the rebels, more than a few of whom are not allies of the West.
This is a situation where we should seek a political and legal solution first, bringing on board as many of our allies as possible.
After all, nobody is in favour of gassing children, so most people can agree about that as a starting point.
If, despite all, a military solution is to be pursued it should be undertaken only with a clear idea of the aims and consequences, and only with sufficient forces to achieve a quick victory and to replace the regime with a more acceptable one.
T. K. DAY
London SW15

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:00 AM

Even amateurs know that to have a good ole American war you have to meet with the weapon contractors, neocon think tanks and Billy Graham to put on a song and dance tribute to the heroes who will march off to glory.

All the high falootin international treaty crap and asking congress to actually take a stand before the carnage begins is not the way it is done.

First get Tucker Carlson to do a 40 minute special in soft low light with a hidden face witness to Syrian WMD's and prove the case for war with hand drawings of the locations and time lines of Syrian threats to American Christians.

Then defend the claims with Judge Nepolitano and retired brigadier General Armand Chair. Bill Cristal and Krauthammer will fill in the gaps.

All this will lead up to the really big gums and guns of paid persuasion like Cheney and God's representatives, if not god himself, to give the final word for war.

The temerity of Obama to think that the Constitution, international treaties and law have anything to do with war and American CIA foreign policy is just plain naïve.


We and the world expect America to lie. that's WHY THEY LOVE TO HATE US. At this point the truth is just confusing to everyone involved.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:29 AM

This has all the earmarks of a classic political disaster for Obama.   He and his administration did not think this through.   And I speak as one who has strongly supported him and does believe that the use of chemical weapons should be prevented.

But this is in fact a trap he has set for himself.

It is very unlikely that even the compromise resolution cited above will be passed by Congress.

The combination of skepticism on the left and a solid anti-Obama group on the right will likely defeat the resolution.   

And in fact there is no justification for the US going it alone.    The Arab states in the region should be leading this effort.   They have gone on record as against the use of chemical weapons by Assad.    But look at their actual attitude: the following states are against any attack unless sanctioned by the UN:      Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunesia and Algeria.

And with Russia and China both against any attack, what chance do you suppose UN support for such an attack would have.

So let's consider an attack without UN support. The UK would not be participating in the attack.   Would France?   Again, doubtful. In theory the French government does not need legislative OK for such participation.   But in fact, since both the US and UK leaderships have asked their legislatures for such assent, it's likely the French leadership would feel compelled to do so.   And it may well be defeated in such a move.

So what's the likely outcome?    The Obama administration, despite the passion of Mr. Kerry---and even some outside the Obama administration, such as Senator McCain---will not have the votes to get this through.

So it will be defeated. And Obama will not make at attack without it.

It could even be argued that Obama will be fine with this---he can assert that he tried to prevent use by Assad of chemical weapons but was prevented in doing so by Congress.


To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:34 AM

"make an attack"

The unexpected consequence from this may however be that Obama does not get the usual 2 year window in a second term to be effective but is a lame duck from now on.

And this would be disastrous for anybody who is in favor of any of his agenda--as I am.

And of course will preclude any chance of the US doing anything to stop Assad's use of chemical weapons--which seems to be a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:36 PM

So what can the Obama administration do without Congress?   No cruise missile attacks, that's for sure.

Anthing else? It could be argued that we should in fact be arming the Syrian opposition.   But we would have to be sure it's not al-Queda sympathizers we are arming.

And even arming the opposition is unlikely now that Obama has given the Syrian crisis the highest possible profile.   It is quite likely that there will be those in Congress asking pointed questions about any assistance the US would give.   And it's not at all clear if Congress could actually agree to do anything.

So our help to the Syrian opposition could wind up being a lot of hot air--and virtually nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:50 PM

To Lord Lamont I would draw his attention to the following points in relation to the war that was being waged between Iran and Iraq at the time:

1: Nobody in the world wanted to see either side victorious in that war, so the international drive was to ensure that it ended in stalemate.

2: Iran signed up to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and ratified it the following year. Iraq also signed in 1972 but did not ratify it until 1991.

3: Therefore during the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was not bound by any treaty and they could not be forced to comply with it by the UN or anybody else.

4: When people refer to Saddam Hussein and his use of chemical agents, the attack that is mentioned is not the 30-odd attacks he made in 1983 against Iranian targets, but Operation Anfal the attack against his own Kurdish citizens in 1988 - something the UN COULD do something about but DIDN'T - perhaps Lord Lamont should take that up with them - what was it that Lord Lamont was doing in 1983? (Member of Parliament wasn't he? - by 1988 he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in fact. Any record of him saying anything at the time? - If so I don't recall it)

5: "A recent article in the US magazine Foreign Policy claimed that US officials who gave Iraq intelligence about Iranian troop movements, did so in the knowledge that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons."

The actual documents revealed that Iraq had used chemical weapons and concluded that they might use them at some time in the future, they also were of the opinion that use of such weapons would not force Iran to negotiate a peace deal.

6: "the West's position in the past has been woefully far from consistent?"

The "West's" position has been remarkably consistent, who was it that drove the 1993 CWC. If any one organisation has proved inconsistent it has been the UN with regard to classifying and acting on acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

To Mr. T.K.Day I would say this:

1: "You call for a military response in Syria. But why a military response?"

I would imagine because a good stiff ticking off in writing would not be very effective.

2: "Lobbing relatively small quantities of high explosives on to hardened targets in Syria (which is all that cruise missiles can achieve) is merely a gesture, and one that might produce
many civilian casualties."

If Bashar Al-Assad knew that those missiles would be targeting him I would imagine that it would give him pause for thought.

3: "To do more than this would be it alter the balance of power in Syria in favour of the rebels, more than a few of whom are not allies of the West."

Would you care to let us all in on who are our allies in Syria? None ever as far as I can recall. But if we act forcefully enough we might just succeed in stopping them from killing one another with chemical weapons.

4: "This is a situation where we should seek a political and legal solution first, bringing on board as many of our allies as possible."

Nothing to do with us or our allies what happens inside Syria - That is a matter for the Syrian people and if they have to fight for it - as we did - then let them get on with it.


5: "If, despite all, a military solution is to be pursued it should be undertaken only with a clear idea of the aims and consequences, and only with sufficient forces to achieve a quick victory and to replace the regime with a more acceptable one.

Who rules Syria has got nothing to do with us, it is a matter for the Syrian nation. By the way, acceptable to who Mr. Day??

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 01:06 PM

"The UN inspectors have completed their task in Syria"

No they have not. They have been pressured to "fold up their tent". The evidence has not been provided to the American public because the administration refused to offer it claiming it's "classified".


" which I note Stringsinger specifically does not accuse Hezbollah of - wonder why.

There is an implication here that I support Hezbollah which is not true. Any action on
the part of Hezbollah, an extremist organization is far less than what Israel has done
to exacerbate war in the Middle East.

"What US invasion? No such thing has been proposed by either the POTUS or the Pentagon"

They have been cagey with their double-talk. In fact, any strike on Syria must be regarded as an invasion. To say otherwise is playing with words.

The complaint about the use of chemical weapons is a red-herring and a propaganda
attempt to invade Syria. It has to be asked, where did the sarin if it was used come from?
We know in Iraq where Hussein obtained his arms and how the U.S. said nothing when the actual use of his chemical weapons were used. Later, they held it over his head.

"Also, McCain is opposing this intervention."

No he has not. He has aligned himself with Kerry, Lindsey Graham, Boehner and other hawks to insist on this deceptive "surgical strike" which constitutes an intervention.

"I am pleased that you agree with me on Israel being blameless"

Israel is far from blameless. It follows the usual line of propaganda that it has created.
AIPAC in the U.S. is an example of extremism encouraged by the Israeli propaganda.
Israel has been looking for any excuse they can find to bomb Syria and Iran. The Netanyahu government is out to create a religious war between Judaism and Islam.
Palestinians are second-class citizens in Israel today.

"If so please indicate Israel's culpability in Syria's implosion."

By continuing joint military exercises, sabre rattling, they exacerbate the hostile
climate. They may even have a stockpile of sarin which leads to a speculation, not proof.
Their spy networks are well-known throughout the world and have been employed
to assassinate Mid East leaders they think are extremists, without a trial by jury, by the way. Of course, they are not under the U.S. Constitution.

Islamic and Israeli extremists are equally culpable in stirring the poison pot in the Mid East. Both elements have a powerful role in their respective governments.
Israeli dissidents are harshly and undemocratically treated there as in Bahrain, Egypt,
Syria and elsewhere. This is what Islamic and Zionist extremists have in common, suppress dissent.

"an actual invasion would be a good thing!"

If by good it's meant an attempt to crush the Assad regime, this is terribly naive. Assad
will emerge as a "hero" to many Mid East extremists, unlike what Kerry has claimed as the rise of moderates, a false appraisal of the Syrian Rebels, but a real rise in the ranks of Al Nousra and Al Quaeda, a dangerous precedent that could easily trigger another world war. The majority of the Syrian Rebels would like to see a return to Sharia Law, not a democratic institution of government.

The only evidence we have for the invasion of Syria is what took place in Iraq when the administration egregiously lied to the American people and Colin Powell smeared himself in his presentation on T.V. Any other evidence supposedly shored up by Obama's administration is deemed "classified" and unavailable in an erstwhile "transparent"
society.

It has to be reminded that sarin gas which killed approximately 500 people, not the inflated figure that Obama has cited, is nothing compared to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody drew a "red line" there, did they?

The only solution to this crisis is through negotiations with many countries in the world who condemn the Assad regime. Russia and the U.S. need to reach a rapprochement
quickly but "surgical strikes" are not the way to do it. There are some who would like
to continue the cold war between U.S. and Russia by condemning Russia for refusing to support the invasion. Obama, with his influential speech-making and political maneuvering could accomplish much as a statesman to galvanize the isolation of Assad through diplomatic means.

The problem is not only Assad but U.S. hegemony and the too powerful influence of the Pentagon and munitions makers.

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

Israel is far from blameless. It follows the usual line of propaganda that it has created.
AIPAC in the U.S. is an example of extremism encouraged by the Israeli propaganda.

So what has any of that got to do with Syria???
The war was entirely and totally internal, apart from intervention by Iran and Hezbollah.
Israel has no influence on either side.
Both sides hate Israel more than they hate each other.

Tell us something Israel actually did, or did not do, that has led in any way to this war between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

And explain your need to implicate, falsely, those "Zionist" swine.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 05:35 PM

McCain is opposed to the Obama plan in that he wants ground troops which is not offered in the white house proposal.
Mc Cain wanted a Georgian war along with 5 more. He is war starved.
Toss the geezer a bone will ya.



It took Nixon to put Chairman's Mao Red Communist China on the path to Wall Mart red capitalism.

It took Obama to turn the Republican Hawk party into doves and pacifists. THEY WILL VOTE NO because they have to do the opposite of every Obama proposal even if it something the republicans first proposed.


I would love to find out that a no vote activated some hidden fine print that made every no voter actually agree that they were not born in the United states. Trump that

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 07:04 PM

No they have not. They [ the U.N. Inspectors ] have been pressured to "fold up their tent"

Yup. Just like Iraq. Its deja vu all over again.....

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 07:37 PM

I believe I heard that Senator McCain said there are weapons in the pipeline (no pun intended, believe it or not) now which will reach the Syrian opposition soon. He is certainly correct that the Syrians would be better off without Assad.   It is not warmongering on his part, contrary to the comfortable stereotypes of some Mudcatters who can't conceive of anything beyond cardboard heroes and villains.   But he is in the distinct minority in the US now on this. The overwhelming majority of the US public does not think regime change should be our goal now in Syria.   A good number think we should stay out for good, and more--including many in the military--think there are too many unanswered questions right now to get in.

Even if weapons are in fact on the way to the Syrian opposition, it doesn't seem likely they willl be getting any more support beyond this any time soon.

The response to Assad has been bollixed up good and proper.

And by this Obama may have killed his own effectiveness on other issues for the rest of his second term.--as I noted earlier, earning the status of an--early--lame duck.

If the resolution passes in the Senate but not in the House, he may be able to beat this rap, since he can then at least claim it was Republicans who stopped his attempt to respond to the chemical attacks.

It's time to get past this tragic farce and return to issues Obama can actually do some good on--like immigration reform. Before he squanders the rest of the political capital he might have had.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 09:35 PM

Check this Brutality of Syrian Rebels Poses a Dilemma in the West for some perspective on the Syrian Rebels, and then read the letters to get a sense of how Americans, Liberal and Conservative, feel about this.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:30 PM

Not surprisingly, the "Syrian crisis" has been virtually the only thing the US television media has been reporting on. Secretary Kerry just finished an interview with "All In"'s Chris Hayes. Kerry wasn't saying anything new - just repeating the same talking points and call to arms he's been repeating the past week to the American people, the media, the Senate, the House ...and it seems as though in the Hayes interview there was an edge of frustration in his voice as he says for what seems like the thousandth time "there will be no boots on the ground" and "this is not Iraq."

No shit. As if this situation being different is all the justification needed for lobbing in a few missiles on the Syrians.

It seems like the bottom line in Kerry's narrowly scripted declarations is "Trust us on this one." He can offer no evidence (surprise: it's all classified); he can't speculate on the outcome of US military intervention in Syria (but it's the right thing to do); he can't explain exactly why intervening in Syria is in the interest of "national security" (but it is); can't comment on why the international community doesn't seem to be as gung-ho as he is for a military strike (even though that community is as repulsed by the use of chemical weapons as the US is).

And he seems frustrated that for all his efforts, he doesn't seem to be convincing anyone that this is a good idea, no matter the degree of "high confidence" he has that al-Assad gassed his own people.

In retrospect, perhaps (ironically) George W. Bush's greatest legacy is that after his inept prosecution of the Iraq war, America was reluctant to fall in lock-step with the next cowboy diplomat that says the answer to all our foreign policy problems is "let's go bomb something."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 01:10 AM

UN Inspectors pressured into folding up their tents - UN inspectors told to leave early.

That is how "western" MSM reported it.

This is what actually happened:

1: Their date of departure was 31st August 2013
2: Their original planned time of departure on that date was 07:00hrs
3: Their actual time of departure on that date was 04:00hrs

WOW.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 03:59 AM

UN Weapons Inspectors Mandate?

To determine whether or not Chemical weapons were used.

That and that alone - They were specifically forbidden by the UN to apportion blame on either side for the attack.

So they went to Damascus
Visited the site of the attack
Collected forensic samples
Visited hospitals
Interviewed Doctors and patients

OK tell me what else they were allowed to do by the Syrian Authorities?
Any visits to Syrian Army Chemical storage sites?
Any samples of Syrian Army Chemical warfare agents for comparison?
Any explanation of the delay in allowing the inspections in the first place?

The Syrians did this before after the Israelis with the help of the Turks destroyed it's secret nuclear weapons site - the Syrians delayed allowing IAEA inspectors in while they sanitized the place - didn't work as the instrumentation brought in still detected nuclear particles that could not be naturally explained.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 06:59 AM

Putin interview.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 07:45 AM

"Putin: Russia doesn't defend Assad, we defend international law"

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 09:42 AM

And now for something completely different:

ALERTS TO THREATS
IN 2013 EUROPE

From JOHN CLEESE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.


Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person


And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

Life is too short...

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 12:22 PM

Parliament speech by George Galloway. WOW!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 02:40 PM

"And explain your need to implicate, falsely, those "Zionist" swine."

I never said such a thing. This is pure falsehood. Explain your need to put words in my mouth.

Syria's Assad regime holds the stability in place between Israel and Syria's border. The Israelis want Assad regime to continue for this reason.

"The war was entirely and totally internal, apart from intervention by Iran and Hezbollah.
Israel has no influence on either side."

Israel wants status quo in this conflict but leans toward Assad. What they want to do is
bomb Iran which will present a world war three scenario since Assad's Syria and Iran
are allies. If the Rebels succeed, Israel will have to be concerned that Syria will turn to
Sunni governance. Then Israel will be a religious target. If the Alawites remain in power, Israel will have less concerned except for Hezbollah. Syria is still smarting from the takeover of the Golan Heights by Israel and the continued expansion. This is a sore point which has not been resolved since 1967.

Israel and Syria

When the U.S. blows its nose, Israel sneezes. The Israeli intelligence is not trustworthy.
They tried to link the Gaza Freedom Flotilla to Al Qaeda with their propaganda.

On August 26, Yaakov Amidror, Shin Bet and US National Security Avisor, Susan Rice
planned the aftermath of a US strike on Syria that they thought would happen.

The intelligence for the use of chemical weapons by Assad was provided originally by
Israeli Intelligence upon which the US relied. AIPAC is lobbying for an attack on Syria.
If the US refuses to attack Syria, Israel threatens continuously to bomb Syria's ally, Iran.
I think you can see where this is going.

The American people don't want this war. Israel better take note.

****************************************************************************************

As for the UN inspectors, it wasn't just Syria that limited their access but the Obama's administration willing to bypass their complete findings in favor of an invasion.

Anyone who believes Western Main Stream Media deserves to have their head examined.
Since there has been no actual evidence to convict Assad shown to the public one can assume that transparent information is locked up under a "classified" key.

There are no good actors in this debacle. Hezbollah has aligned itself with Assad. Syria needs Iran. Hamas is on the side of the Sunni Rebels. Russia backs Assad because its only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Syria. They are afraid of US hegemony.

6 culprits in the invasion

I agree with Noam Chomsky that an attack on Syria would constitute a war crime.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 03:10 PM

Even if true that Israel would like things not to change, that hardly makes them responsible for the war starting.
Israel is blameless in this war.

Suppose they did want to bomb Iran, that would not start this war either.
No blame on Israel.

So what if Israel and US share intelligence.
That would not set the Sunni and Shia at each other either.

You have not implicated Israel in the slightest.
Tell us how Israel was in any way responsible for the Syrian uprising and civil war please.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 06:06 PM

Excellent speech from Gorgeous George.....finest orator in politics.
First time I've seen that gnu (thanks)......the speech was not covered by any UK media, as far as I am aware, that says it all really.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 06:16 PM

Just like to add, as we see "Iraq part2" start to unfold, what has happened to all the Obama supporters.....all the guys who mocked Little Hawk, Sanity, Songwronger, stringsinger and others, for suggesting that Mr Obama serves the same masters as Mr Bush.

Seriously wont you just take a look at "democracy" in the US and UK, do you believe its real, or a charade? Is it repairable, or should we bin this system and start again.....there are a lot of BIG questions to be answered , and not much time

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 09:13 PM

"Israel wants status quo in this conflict but leans toward Assad. What they want to do is bomb Iran"

This is pure falsehood, what they actually want to do is prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapon capability which, IMO, is perfectly legitimate seeing as how that state has declared as that's goal is to see Israel wiped off the map. Yeah, yeah I know that was only a figure of speech....nudge, nudge, wink wink.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 10:27 PM

Obama really wants a war. Read the news.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 01:07 AM

Thank you, Guest.    We will give your contributions all the respect they deserve, considering the wonderful courage you have shown in voicing them.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 01:47 AM

Thanks for the laugh Bobad. gnu MAGNIFICENT speech!

I want to repost what I posted earlier in this thread. See how it fits with what's happening now? If there were no agenda for regime change. If that were the case, the Syrian rebels would be "unworthy victims":

From "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Hermann & Chomsky, 1988):

"Propaganda campaigns can occur only when consistent with the interests of those controlling and managing the filters. For example, these managers all accepted the view that the Polish government's crackdown on the Solidarity union in 1980-81 was extremely newsworthy and deserved severe condemnation; whereas the same interests did not find the Turkish military government's equally brutal crackdown on trade unions in Turkey at about the same time to be newsworthy or reprehensible. In the latter case the U.S. government and business community liked the military government's anticommunist stance and open door economic policy; and the crackdown on Turkish unions had the merit of weakening the Left and keeping wages down. In the Polish case, propaganda points could be scored against a Soviet-supported government, and concern could be expressed for workers whose wages were not paid by Free World employers! The fit of this dichotomization to corporate interests and anticommunist ideology is obvious.

We used the concepts of "worthy" and "unworthy" victims to describe this dichotomization, with a trace of irony, as the differential treatment was clearly related to political and economic advantage rather than anything like actual worth. In fact, the Polish trade unionists quickly ceased to be worthy when communism was overthrown and the workers were struggling against a western-oriented neoliberal regime. The travails of Polish workers now, like those of Turkish workers, do not pass through the propaganda model filters. They are both unworthy victims at this point."

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm

See how it fits?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 02:42 AM

"Israel is blameless in this war."
Israel is blameless for everything Keith!!
You seem to have dedicated your life to defending their atrocities, supporting British policy of selecting the most extreme Governments of the world to sell weapons to, persuading the world that no action can be taking over the consequences of such weapons sales and slagging off anybody who disagrees with you.
Predictability seems to be your single strong point.
Wouldn't you be more fitted to taking up gardening while there's a few more weeks good weather left in the year?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 03:53 AM

Akenaton: "Just like to add, as we see "Iraq part2" start to unfold, what has happened to all the Obama supporters....."

They're in hiding....oh yeah, and "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 03:54 AM

OK Jim.
YOU tell us what Israel did to instigate any of this, because Stringsinger plainly can not.

What is their blame for Syria Jim Carroll?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 04:11 AM

I think we're pissing into the wind Suzy...most of the people here just want to score personal points when they think they have the ascendency; and keep their heads down when their ideology is proved to be wrong.

Political partisanship is very powerful and destructive....."liberalism" has nothing to do with absorbing ideas, listening to alternatives, even "toleration" of fact based arguments which contradict the on "message" ideology

"Liberalism" is in reality a form of "Fascism", a myth based philosophy which is deemed to be above normal debate.

"Some things are just the RIGHT thing to do".........how many times have we heard that from our politicians and our forum members? Usually from those whom we would trust the least. :0)

Foolishness and wilful ignorance are real dangers.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 04:20 AM

Akenaton: ".....all the guys who mocked Little Hawk, Sanity, Songwronger, stringsinger and others, for suggesting that Mr Obama serves the same masters as Mr Bush."


NOTE the SAME players then and now!!!!!..from FIVE YEARS AGO!!!!


Subject: RE: BS: Observations of the Dem. Nat. Convention
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 05:25 AM

Jack, There are no blinkers.....Just because I don't believe Obama, doesn't mean I'm for McCain. So far, I'm still not impressed by either one....I think the blinkers need to come off those who are so one track minded, to actually believe in either of these two, with all the earnest that they do! Nor do I believe that either one of them, will 'uphold the constitution', that one of them will swear to. Both of them have agendas that further degrade our rights. If you can't see that, then perhaps YOU should take your blinders(not blinkers) off!!! Matter of fact, it's not that I don't see, what you see in them, look a little harder, and you can see THROUGH them!....Its all political posturing, and we are about to be dealt another blow, from both the right and the left.....and you think its from a separate boxer...its the same boxer, throwing us punches from the right, and the left, ducking and weaving. These two 'candidates' are 'front men' for the same thing..Look up Machiavellian Principle. We've been set up!..Jeezus Peezus, WE are the composers, poets musicians and writers, and yet some of you act as if you have no vision, no insight, and are just lemmings, following this crap, as gospel!..WAKE UP!

GfS

P.S....and look at all the crap some of us have taken since!!..."Sanity to Galactic Central...Sanity to Galactic Central, come in please......I've delivered your message to them, AHEAD OF TIME, as instructed.. and history has once again proved us right....it was a pain in the ass...is there anything else they should be told, that they won't ignore????"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 05:29 AM

"YOU tell us what Israel did to instigate any of this"
Us?
Sorry Keith, no interest in talking to someone who doesn't listen – and neither is anybody else from the number of responses to you – why should I have to look after the village idiot again. Have no intention of baby-minding our resident one any more – whee!!!
Just got a little bored with your boringly predictabe attempts to persuade us to shove our noses up Israel's terrorist arse along with your own and persuading us that their state terrorism is acceptable.
Anyway, I thought I might try my hand at a little of your stalking to see what it is about it that turns you on.
Have 'nother good day, d'you hear now
Jim Carroll
By the way, love the Keith A – arsehole I presume?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 05:42 AM

Jim, if it was humanly possible to put any blame on Israelis, you would have had a go.
The fact is that even if Israel had already been wiped off the map, this war of Arab against Arab, Sunni against Shia, would still be going bloodily on.

The fact is that you and Stringsinger hate Israelis so much that you felt driven to attack them in a thread with no relevance to them, on an issue that has no connection with them.

Obsessive hatred is a feature of your troubled psyche Jim.
Report me for that too if you like.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 08:36 AM

In the short story, "The Blue Hotel," by Stephen Crane, it is stated that "Every sin is the result of collaboration."

I have to agree. If we don't want things to happen like what just happened in Syria, we have to stop producing, selling and supplying the shit. The profiteering must end.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 10:43 AM

Suzy Sock Puppet: "If we don't want things to happen like what just happened in Syria, we have to stop producing, selling and supplying the shit."

Or having OUR people do what happened, whether it be an agency, or hired guns, to foment an 'unavoidable war'(?), while our elected representatives of the banksters convince you that any dissension 'just must be party politics'......and then we have to wade through the nonthinking, but very vocal parrots, spewing their hatred, while feeling so very useful!!....Ya' want to be useful??..Get your shit together, and write music, that unifies mind, soul and Spirit, and one to another because of Love, not politics!!!!!!!
..Besides, 'The voice of deception has uneven rhythms'..!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 11:05 AM

"The fact is that you and Stringsinger hate Israelis so much that you felt driven to attack them in a thread with no relevance to them, on an issue that has no connection with them."

This is a lie. I know many Israeli friends.   Not all of them support Netanyahu's authoritarian regime. I call your attention to two leading dissidents, one of them Israeli, Uri Avnery and the other a Jew, Norman Finkelstein who are critical of the Netanyahu regime.

Here's how the government of Israel is culpable. They have secret intelligence
agencies that stir up instability surreptitiously and tried to involve the U.S. by advocating the bombing of Iran but their dilemma is that they want the Assad
regime to remain in power to stabilize their boundaries with Syria. The conflict they have is that if they support the Rebels which some members of AIPAC have advocated, they will encourage the Sunni elements to emerge. The Syrian Civil War can be traced to 1967 borders where Israel had taken Syrian land in the Golan Heights and started to build settlements there in violation of UN mandates. As long as Assad remains in power, these boundaries will be frozen, they think. This is why Israel supports Assad and takes sides in the Syrian Civil War.

Iran has never said officially that they want to wipe Israel off the map. This is sheer paranoia and Zionist propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 01:03 PM

So those pesky Zionists secretly control the US government.
I suppose they control most world governments, and the banks and much else.
But then, how did the US government cause those poor helpless Arabs to start killing each other?

Please explain how anyone outside Syria stirred up the mostly Sunni people to rise against the regime.
(apart from the foreigners from Iran and Lebanon who went in to fight for the regime.)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 01:27 PM

"The fact is that you and Stringsinger hate Israelis"
No we do not -= and this is a typical distortion of our position.
What we do hate is what the various Israel terrorist regimes have done to the people of |Israel - even admitted by previous heads of Mossad - they have disgraced the State of Israel and dragged its name into the slime.
You might add to that the braindeads who egg on those regimes from the safety of their keyboards
My family welcomed the setting up of the State following WW2, my grandmother was jailed for throwing a brick at a Blackshirt rally in Liverpool in the thirties, my father fought shoulder to shoulder with Jews in Spain and shared, first a hospital ward and then a prison yard with many of them.
To a man, all of those people I have met are ashamed of what has become of Israel - it was a Jewish girlfriend in Manchester who first told me that Israel has become a fascist state - I was appalled and nearly fell out with her over her statement.
I realise you believe these people to be Anti-Semite lefties and I very much doubt if you will even bother to acknowledge what they have to say – even though many of them belong to families of Holocaust survivors.
How dare you claim we hate Israel – we'd have to run a 1000mph and then catch a Bullet-train to even come within viewing distance of the damage you apologists have done to Israel.
Stringy and I couldn't possibly do the damage to the Israeli people that you and your kind have done to the Israeli people, and Jewish people as a whole also, by describing criticism of Istael's state terrorism as Anti-Semitic. .
You might elicit some admiration if you had put a little effort into your 'defence' of Israel, as it is, you confine your arguments to Dalek-like repetitions of "they didn't do it" knee-jerks. Even scumbags like David Irving put some sort of an skill and thought into his Anti-Semitic filth, your Anti-Semitic filth is totally thoughtless and effortless.
You are one of the most mindlessly reactionary rightists I have ever come across.
The massacre of 3,500 refugees facilitated by Israeli State thugs – "Arabs killing Arabs, nuffin to do with Israel.
The forcible moving of entire ethnic communities onto sites that are recognised officially recognised as being toxic – not poison, and the State doesn't have to cater for people who live differently anyway even though they've occupied the land they've been evicted from for millennia
Chemical weapons that have burned the faces off small children (proven to you with photographs) - harmless as fireworks and not against the law anyway
Over one hundred attempts to bring Israel to book for its war crimes – all vetoed by the U.S. and you would not even be able to produce one single occasion when you have agreed with any single criticism whatever, not one – usually denying it outright, but when you have no alternative, simply ignoring it.
The only thing that makes it worthwhile responding to your fanaticism in the slightest degree is it give us an opportunity to yet again expose yourselves for what you are –Zionist thugs, (if you had the bottle or nouse to actually put a little effort into what you claim to believe in) and even this has been made redundant by the fact that this year's efforts have done the job so well that our presence here no more than morbid curiosity - and it's only September.
I only remain to wonder if you will actually respond to this with anything resembling thought, or whether you'll just switch on your "it's all lies" loop – hope the bookies is still open!
You are the most extreme apologist of human rights abuses I have ever come across and certainly the least intelligent
I have not doubt that if the subject was the 'Sharpville' massacre you would claim "it was the blacks wot dun it"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 01:47 PM

So, why did you try to turn this discussion about the crisis in Syria into yet another opportunity to attack Israel?
Not Russia who is arming the regime.
Not China who is arming the regime.
Not Iran and Hezbollah who are supplying fighters for the regime.
Not the Arab states who are arming the rebels.

Just Israel, who is just an innocent bystander.
And Britain, of course, by you Jim.

Obsessive, irrational hatred is what it looks like.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 03:08 PM

Kieth, you forgot the U.S. (and related backers)for orchestrating it.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 03:27 PM

""Ya' want to be useful??..Get your shit together, and write music, that unifies mind, soul and Spirit, and one to another because of Love, not politics!!!!!!!""

YEAH! That'll solve all the world's problems.......NOT!

You're advocating fucking fiddling while Rome burns?

Sheesh!!
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 03:30 PM

"So, why did you try to turn this discussion about the crisis in Syria into yet another opportunity to attack Israel?"
I didn't - I responded to your continued mindless defence of Israeli behaviour - and you are well aware of that fact.
I did not turn it into an attack on Israel - I have no opinion on their role here - I commented on your slavering sycophancy towards ALL Israeli crimes.
The only time Israel has been mentioned other than in my responses to you, has been in my given examples of something else, of over which I have no control - nuffing to do with me guv -same as your sole defence of Israeli atrocities
I expect neither withdrawal, nor apology for this (once again) deliberate distortion of my position and will be surprised even if you bother to acknowledge it - why break the habit of a lifetime?
You have made it perfectly clear that you never consider yourself wrong, you hardly ever apologise, and you consider apologising as "grovelling" - note the quotation marks - you have described it as such on several occasions.
You have not commented on the fact that many Jews are appalled by Israeli regime behaviour - including Israelis.
You have never responded to the Mossad heads' statements directly, you have never acknowledged the links to Jews for Justice and critical comments by balanced journals like Haaretz - you out of hand dismissed the evidence of the Jewish nurse who witnessed Sabra/Shatila once you realised she hadn't said what you wanted her to say - other than to deny her claim of what she saw.
You and your crummy mates have never even acknowledged the peace talks, let alone explain the Israeli regimes behaviour which has already caused a breakdown in those despite the fact that ordinary Israeli citizens will be among the main casualties shuld those negotiations fail - It is Israeli men women and children as well as Palestinian who will end up in body-bags - not even worth a mention by you or yours - and you claim to be pro-Israeli - my arse you are; you have done no more than defend the Israeli regime's war crimes - you don't give a toss for the Israeli people
As far as I'm concerned.
Don't you dare call me or anybody Anti-Semite or Anti-Israeli you appalling little Jew-hater.
"Obsessive, irrational hatred is what it looks like."
You have ever said a truer word, and I doubt that you ever shall
Even your cut-'n-pastes in support of them show more than a flick-of-the-typing finger effort.
In the past you have been offered literature to read and dispute and you've dismissed it as "too long" and "tto boring" and you have described the postings that are any longer than a "Sun headline as the same
God - even the Israeli regime deserves a better defence than you have put up own their behalf - make an effort man!
Jim Carroll
All together now "Lies, lies, Lies etc"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 03:57 PM

I don't know if this has been flagged up before.

George Galloway's View

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 04:32 PM

This thread is nothing to do with Israel.
Stringsinger tried to implicate Israel.
I just asked him how it was possible.

You have posted screens full of text about Israel with all the usual accusations you have posted so many times on so many threads.
Why Jim?
This thread is about chemical weapons in Syria.
You are an obsessed man!
You have a deranged, obsessional hatred for them, and just can not stop yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 05:06 PM

For God's sake! You can't keep Israel out of the argument when they have so much sway in the States!
Yes, it's about chemical weapons AND about who did what!
And, you can bet your bottom dollar that Israel - and their friends in the States, are pulling lots of strings at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 05:24 PM

Israel's preference is for Assad to remain in power whereas the US wants to hit him to deter and degrade his chemical weapon capability so why do you feel it is necessary to bring Israel into the argument? If anything they would be playing a tempering role.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 06:51 PM

Don T: "YEAH! That'll solve all the world's problems.......NOT!"


Ever tried???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 02:27 AM

Everyone in the world has an opinion, not just Israel.
The war is nothing to do with Israel or US.
Only the decision to intervene or not on sarin use in that war.
US has had the opinion of ALL the major leaders.

You might want this to be about Israel, but it is not.
Israel is an innocent bystander.
If you challenge that, tell us what they have done.
"Pulling strings" does not count.
US is not a puppet.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 04:18 AM

Check out the George Galloway interview for a "different take" - than the American government's -on the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 04:30 AM

This thread is nothing to do with Israel.
I have never at one time brought Israel into this discussion –the only time it has appeared in any of my postings is in a long cut 'n paste in reply to an Islamophobic rant by Bearded Bruce on the Muslim religion – all the mentions in my post were quotes from the Christian Bible – a comparison between the Christian and Muslim religions, not even they had anything to do with the state of Israel, but were 2,000 year old biblical references – to describe them as an attack on Israel is utterly grotesque, even by your standards – about as dishonest as you have sunk on this forum – have you even bothered to read that pasting? (27 Aug 13 - 08:49 AM)
You are not even adept at manipulating this thread, which appears to be the only thought you give to what you right.
"Stringsinger tried to implicate Israel"
Bearded Bruce introduced Israel into this thread – Stringsinger's first posting was in regard to possible attacks on Israel by Hezbollah and laterIsrael's passing on information about chemical attacks.
I have had no part in discussing Israel on this thread, just your apparently uncontrollable sycophancy whenever the name is mentioned
I have never at any time mentioned Israel in this thread other than to comment on your kneejerk defence of the Israeli regime – NOT THE ISRAELI PEOPLE – THE POLICY OF THE REGIME
I have stated my feelings about the Israeli people and of my feeling for the Jewish people as a whole, – which you have ignored, as I predicted you would.
I have stated my feelings on the attempts to arrive at some sort of peace settlement in the Middle East (not here) which you have ignored, as I predicted you would.
Not only have you ignored these attempts at peace, but you, Bruce, Boo-Boo and Guest from Sanitry, have refused even to respond to direct requests, you have refused even to acknowledge that there are peace talks taking place – not one of you sorry bunch AND YOU WILL CONTINUUE TO IGNORE THEM - THAT IS THE LEVEL OF YOUR CONCERN FOR THE ISRAELI PEOPLE
You show no concern for the Israeli people, only for the policies of their leaders.
You show no concern for the British people, only for the policies of their leaders.
You appear to identify Britain and Israel through their governments, not their ordinary people
You show no concern for any single group of human beings on this planet – only their leaders and their policies – you will not even comment on how those policies affect the people those leaders are supposed to represent.
You appear to be totally devoid of a single streak of humanity – what kind of an individual are you?
You have my opinions – you refuse to respond to what I write and you will continue to do so - I expect no more from you, that sums up perfectly what you are and how you (don't) think or feel.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 04:43 AM

Jim dear, Stringsinger actually implicated Israel in causing the war, and I challenged it saying Israel was blameless.
Remember?
You attacked me for making that statement and then went on to make all your usual attacks on Israel with all those tired old accusations you have posted so many times on so many threads.
Remember?
Israel is irrelevant to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 05:54 AM

"Israel is irrelevant to this thread."
Then ask why Bruce introduced it, ask yourself why you have discussed it , ask Boo-Boo why he has joined you (on second thoughts, don't bother, Boo-Boo appears not to be able to find his own arse with both hands)
I have at no time attempted to discuss Israel or its policies on this thread - if it concerns you so much, why have you?
PLEASE STOP ATTEMPTING TO DISHONESTLY IMPLICATE ME IN SOMETHING YOU, BOO-BOO AND BRAINLESS BRUCE HAVE DONE THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD - I HAVEN'T ATTEMPTED TO DISCUSS ISRAEL HERE - YOU ALL HAVE -AND I HAVE MADE THAT QUITE CLEAR IN EARLIER POSTS
Do you not have a shred of honesty left in you?
By the way - do you realise that "Jim dear," has become a sort of nervous tic every time you paint yourself into a corner.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 06:05 AM

And please respond to my comments on your apparent contempt for the Israeli, Jewish and British people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 06:07 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/russia-holding-cards-syria-crisis#start-of-comments

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 08:43 AM

I have not discussed Israel except to say it has no relevance to this thread.
You have posted pages about it.
Why?

Israel has been discussed interminably here but there has been very little discussion about the most serious issue of the time, the humanitarian catastrophe that is Syria.

Please Jim, get off your weary old hobby horse.

Have you any more to say about Syria?
Still advocating an invasion by Western troops, or will you be satisfied with a time limited missile offensive?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 09:05 AM

"I have not discussed Israel except to say it has no relevance to this thread.
You have posted pages about it.
Why?"
This is becoming intolerable - you are not responding to my statements - you are continuing to openly lie about my postings here.
You seem determined to wreck this thread as you have wrecked many others and have now reduced your role to just trolling on this forum - I refuse to be part of that deliberate vandalism
Your behaviour now is not unlike that of a very disturbed child
I hope the forum administrators will note your behaviour and take appropriate action
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 10:36 AM

If only all those people and politicians now opposing any intervention had expressed that view back when Obama first announced that he regarded chemical weapons as a red line.

If only they had objected at the time that they actually did not care what methods of slaughter were used on Syrians, Obama would have known what to expect.

No-one on Mudcat came out and said it was not our concern whether gas, germs or radionucleides rained on innocent families, but now they are outraged that Obama assumed decent people would support him.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 11:25 AM

Jim Carroll: "Not only have you ignored these attempts at peace, but you, Bruce, Boo-Boo and Guest from Sanitry, have refused even to respond to direct requests, you have refused even to acknowledge that there are peace talks taking place – not one of you sorry bunch AND YOU WILL CONTINUUE TO IGNORE THEM - THAT IS THE LEVEL OF YOUR CONCERN FOR THE ISRAELI PEOPLE"

Was there something in particular that you wanted me to answer or comment on from you??..If so what is it exactly?
Fair enough?
BTW, this time, just ask, without the tirade.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 11:29 AM

""Unbelievable!!!!! Now we have part 2 of the pseudo intellectual ravings of Musket, shaw, stringdriver, don wizjet and seaman stayns, who are now joined by a few more posing nomarks.""

Would somebody please tell that truth twisting, lying ar**hole that being disinclined to start throwing bombs around is not the same as not caring about gassed men, women and children.

It's been done before, and it is always disastrous, usually for the very people you are trying to save.

Anyone with genuine concern for the victims of Assad's desire to hang on to power should be beating their political leaders over the head with the message that we want all of them to get together and make genuine diplomatic efforts.

TALK FIRST! Leave the bombs in storage.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 11:32 AM

Wrong cut and paste at the start of that belongs in another thread.

Should read ""If only they had objected at the time that they actually did not care what methods of slaughter were used on Syrians, Obama would have known what to expect.""

DT

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 11:37 AM

Sorry, Keith. Moral outrage by itself is just not a good basis for foreign policy.    Thinking is also sometimes useful.   You might try it sometime.

And if the Arab states around Syria are not willing to clearly stand with Obama in supporting an attack on Syria--without putting an impossible precondition on it-- that says a lot about their seriousness in dealing with this.

Further, it is still not established how you and other zealots will deal with the inevitable "collateral damage" from attacks on Syria.   

And by the way, let me congratulate you on the wonderful job you have done in convincing your fellow Britons that an attack on Syria is essential.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 11:47 AM

Don T: "It's been done before, and it is always disastrous, usually for the very people you are trying to save.
Anyone with genuine concern for the victims of Assad's desire to hang on to power should be beating their political leaders over the head with the message that we want all of them to get together and make genuine diplomatic efforts.
TALK FIRST! Leave the bombs in storage."

Being as we DON'T know for sure if Assad actually used the gasses, or if it was somebody else, I agree with you on this one.

(quick, get him the smelling salts!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 12:13 PM

So, was Obama wrong to make it a red line?
Should he have announced that no action would be taken?

Collateral damage?
That is indeed a serious and difficult issue.
Would you rule out any use of force that might cause it?
Was it wrong to invade occupied Europe?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 01:02 PM

Kieth A of Hertford: "So, was Obama wrong to make it a red line?
Should he have announced that no action would be taken?"



He was running his mouth, forgetting that he was not running for anything, and wanted to look like he meant business...now he's running his mouth again, drumming up support to invade, when the world has no idea who did it....other than who he says did it, which is as about as reliable as a cardboard rubber!...May be he KNOWS who did it...maybe they were just obeying his orders...maybe not...maybe they were obeying a corporation's orders..maybe not...maybe they worked for an international bank..or a multinational bank...maybe not...maybe the rebels...maybe not..maybe Assad's forces..maybe not.....
...Too many maybes to invade somebody over, eh??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 04:42 PM

There is no way to know the actual results of either action or inaction.
And the same will be true if Assad continues to use lethal gases in spite of punishment.

Regardless of treaty obligations, any government with WMDs may be expected to use them if they think their backs are to the wall and their personal safety is not at risk. That is simply a statement of human nature. The only way to force Assad and his crew to relent would be to nuke them. Personally. That option is not on the table. Nor should it be.

Maybe few missiles will influence the man. Maybe not.

The US could save itself a lot of money by flipping a coin. Regardless of the ultimate decision, more complicated methods in this case offer no better promise of a good result.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 05:20 PM

By the flip of a coin, eh?

You ought to send that one up to Military Strategic and Tactical Command!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 08:35 PM

"Was there something in particular that you wanted me to answer or comment on from you??..If so what is it exactly?"
Didn't want tp "ask" you anything
None of you morons have had the bottle to acknowledged that there is a peace conference going on, let alone explain (or eccuse) Israel's deliberate attempts to scupper it - each time, scurrying behind attempts to rewrite ancient history
Why you should possibly think you have anything of interest to say is beyond me - it's just amusing to see you go through the motns
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 01:54 AM

None of you morons have had the bottle to acknowledged that there is a peace conference going on, let alone explain (or eccuse) Israel's deliberate attempts to scupper it

Because we are not discussing Israel Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 02:59 AM

Kieth: "Because we are not discussing Israel Jim."

Hey man, stop for just a second....think of all the emotions that got stirred up about this, just thinking about it... ....OK?...........OK?......They're trying hard for that, for some hidden agenda....THEY STILL DON'T FOR SURE WHO DID IT......OK, you can breathe again......Now, can you see why, a lot of people are suspicious, and not behind it??..If you wanna talk about Israel, well it's about as relevant as...well, anything...because if they don't have a target group, that they know for SURE,..why are they pushing it so hard???
You may be listening to too many morons, yourself, Chief!...
Who, How, Why!!!

Until that's down, this is ALL bullshit...the emotional frenzy ESPECIALLY!

Sincerely,

GfS

P.S. In case you might not be aware of my posts, on the matter, I'd suggest you looking at the CIA thread, running concurrently....

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 03:47 AM

"Because we are not discussing Israel Jim."
Do not tell me what we're discussing Keith - you and your moronic buddies have been discussing Israel on this thread since the beginning - you lyingly attempted to claim that I have done the same.
It's bad enough that there are religious nutters running around the Middle East killing each other and using British-sold (regular and chemical) weapons to do so, without having to put up with the thought that the same morons had got as far as to infest this forum
You thought thugs first placed Israel here on the scene - live with it
Back off - and don't you dare tell me or anybody else what we can, can't and should discuss on this forum - you appear to be stricken with a Messiah complex, apart from everything thing else that you have going for you - YOU ARE NOT A FORUM ADMINISTRATOR AND, CERTAINLY FROM YOUR RECENT BEHAVIOUR, YOU NEVER SHALL BE - UNLESS THE LUNATICS ARE FINALLY GIVEN THE KEYS TO THE ASYLUM.
Back off
Unless you suddenly develop the bottle to attempt to quailfy your lyng (oh, I forgot - you "do not lie") I have nothing to say to you; go and talk to Sanitary and take his example of saying nothing (even though he take up a great deal of space saying it).
Israel is a legitimate subject for inclusion here.
Assad and his killers are unfortunately not the only ones in the Middle East. Iran (with her aspirations to nuclear capability) is waiting in the wings, and Israel, in the almost invincible position of having full nuclear capability, the US veto and God (as some of their fanatics would have us believe) on her side, has been doing her slaughtering for a long, long time - not the best prospects for the future for us and ours.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 04:17 AM

Thread "CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN SYRIA"

Not withstanding Cameron's defeat, UKIP was the only British party opposed to the intervention.
In US, it seems to be the Tea Party.

And most of Mudcat are with them!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 04:58 AM

Back off you moronic troll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:51 AM

Breakfast in America- a cup of coffee and a bowl of Syria. Yuck!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 09:50 AM

From Eric Margolis' latest column...(I've nothing to add to it, except some "bold" coding in one place. He says it all.)

September 7, 2013

Recalling the massacres and destruction during the 1820's Greek war of independence from the Ottoman Empire, then Victor Hugo wrote, "the Turks have passed by here – All is in ruins and mourning."

Today, the nations in ruins and mourning are Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and, to a lesser degree, Libya, all dismembered or broken up by the power of the mighty American Raj.

Syria is clearly the next target of the American imperial bulldozer. After two years of brutal rebellion armed and financed by the US and its regional allies, Syria now faces devastation.

A campaign of air-strikes and missiles will crush Syria's air force, tanks, artillery and communications. Israel stands ready to sweep up the ruins of Syria.

Pure black comedy. Shamelessly stealing Bush administration propaganda, the Obama White House has been actually warning that Syria's chemical weapons (most of their raw materials came from Europe) pose a dire threat to the United States. Syria acquired chemical weapons to counter Israel's large arsenal of nuclear weapons, originally supplied by France.

Failure to act will be another Munch appeasement, warns Obama. But the US Congress could not take action because it was still on summer vacation.

President Obama even allowed there was no urgency for action. The important thing he declared was that America's "credibility" was at stake. Politicians invoke credibility as a excuse after they have made a huge blunder –notably Obama's foolish "red lines" in Syria that boxed the president into a corner of his own making.

What we are seeing is the latest, 21st century version of the new era of colonialism and imperialism, with a touch of Crusader zeal thrown in.

Today, the favored euphemism is humanitarian intervention, but the song remains the same. Syria is not about poison gas or human rights: it's about a proxy war against Iran, the only nation now challenging total US and Israel military domination of the Mideast.

For France, it's about reasserting its former colonial rule in Syria and Lebanon

In 1857, a Chinese baker in Hong Kong tried to poison the British trade superintendent. Britain's parliament was summoned to vote on retaliation against China. The vote did not pass. But soon after a new parliament with more conservatives voted for war.

France rushed to join Britain, citing the killing of a French missionary. Russia and the US joined. The Second Opium War had begun. China was quickly defeated by the western powers and forced to open it ports to their commerce and begin consuming highly addictive opium grown in the British Indian Raj.

Look at current events in Syria in this historical light rather than all the indignation over chemical weapons in Syria. Besides, given that the weird Japanese cult, Aum Shinrikyo, managed to produce home-made Sarin ( I just barley missed its attack on Tokyo's subway), how do we know who really made Syria's gas?

Far more important, the US Congress has become seriously corrupted by special interest money – and that's putting it gently. How else did all the Wall Street bankers escape punishment for their egregious financial frauds and theft?

Now, other wealthy special interest in America are beating the war drums and pulling the strings of their legislators. Israel is pushing the US hard to destroy its old foe Syria – which would remove the last Arab state capable of offering even modest military resistance to Israel.

So it seems likely the upcoming Congressional vote may approve a "limited" war. But remember "mission creep" from Vietnam days? Previous estimates of a so-called limited air campaign against Iran called for over 3,200 targets to be hit repeatedly.

And who will rule Syria after President Bashar Assad is deposed or killed? Today's Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan hardly offer a promising example of Washington-guided democracy.

Washington is still trying to figure out what happened to Herzegovina – it's not ready for Syria's maddening complexity. In fact, I'd wager that most members of the US Congress could not find Syria on a map. Ordinary taxpaying Americans, polls show, are totally against yet another jolly little war that has no sense to it, no exit strategy, and that offers only mayhem and confusion.

But the US chariot of the Juggernaut just keeps rolling along.



****

Wait. I'll add this. There once was a great fascist Axis that threatened the world in the 1940s with a series of invasions and imperial expansions through military force and specious propaganda. It was composed of Germany, Italy, and Japan. One of its creations, Fascist Spain, survived the war that brought down that Axis.

There has been a new Axis rising in the world ever since 1945 (and accelerate since 911). It is composed of the USA, the UK, France, and Israel. It has already crushed several independent nations in its quest to extend empire. It now intends to crush one more: Syria. And after that? Iran.

Who will stop this new fascist Axis in its imperial march across the world? The ironical thing is that the new fascist Axis is composed of the very governments and cultures (in the West, that is) who conquered the last one! That's how it tends to go with empires, if you look back at history with an honest and nonpartisan eye. One bloody tyrant is thrown down, and another bloody tyrant (the victor) rises in his place. And the great game of the conquering empires goes on and on. We in the West presently ARE what we fought against in WWII! The Zionist zealots in the Israeli government presently ARE what their own grandparents were rounded up by and killed by in the 1940s.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 02:54 PM

Just watched Obama on television slugging away at his policy (which we wre told he doesn't agree with - wonder where our resident prat got the idea that the Tea Party were the Tea Party were the only ones supporting intervention - strange world!!)
It seems the main argument against intervention is that it "isn't in our (America's") interest - fair enough I suppose.
I never thought I would ever support the idea of the U.S. sending troops into anywhere (I was one of the 50,000 crammed into Grosvevnor Square in 1969), but to leave the Syrian people to be massacred by one of out old Allies seems totally obscene to me.
The Assads of this world are largely our creatures - we traded with them, we were silent about their appalling human rights records - we even sold the bastards munitions, even provided the wherewithal to make the chemical weapons they are now using.
After the Arab Spring protests started we were holding Arms Fairs to sell to potential Assads including Bahrain for ****'* sake!
The fact that the Syrian Arab Spring protests were allowed to develop into civil war can largely be laid at the door of the 'civilised' west is due largely to the fact that the rest of the world sat on its hands and did nothing because "it was not in our interests"
If intervention galvanises the U.N. into getting off their collective arses, or even if it only causes Assad to pause and thin on what it MIGHT DO to Syrian/British relationship we are informed he treasures so greatly, we will have at least made an effort.
To sit back and watch further slaughter is unthinkable if we are to continue to call ourselves human beings
"And the great game of the conquering empires goes on and on"
Can't say how much I agree with your last paragraph Guest
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 03:35 PM

Seems that Jim, in being so hostile favors war...but with who? Talking about being a silly prat, it has yet to be determined who set off the chemicals....what part of that do you NOT understand????????????????
Nobody has proved WHO DID IT..can't you get that through your brick lined noggin????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 03:58 PM

Assad is a sociopath. He cares about his own life but not others. Bombs won't stop him.

Obama needs to talk honestly to Putin. This is the hangup in the UN.

Israel and the U.S. are joined at the hip. This dictates foreign policy on Syria and Iran.

Violence begets violence.

Transparency on the issue of chemical warfare is classified. We don't know where
the sarin came from and no one on Mudcat does.

I'm appalled that the U.S. traditionally supports dictators. "Our bastards".

A military strike is a declaration of war, officially or otherwise.

Manning and Snowden are red-herrings for Obama now.

Diplomacy is the only answer. It always was and still is.

Who can the U.S. legitimately accuse of expanding their borders?

The U.S. can't be an honest broker by itself. Every country in the world
should come to the table. Not possible? Well try...and try again.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 04:06 PM

From Mother Jones:

"Russia proposes Syria put weapons under international control in attempt to avert attack." On Monday, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister who conveyed the message to the Syrian government, said that he expected "a quick and, I hope, a positive answer." A senior White House official told NBC News that this seemed like merely a delay tactic.

The Russian proposal was similarly to a comment (but not a formal offer) that US Secretary of State John Kerry had made earlier on Monday.

"Additional countries." On Sept. 6, the US issued a joint statement condemning the Assad regime and supporting reinforcement of the prohibition on chemical-weapons use. The list has grown, and, as of Monday, the countries formally signed on to the joint statement are:

    Albania
    Australia
    Canada
    Croatia
    Denmark
    Estonia
    France
    Germany
    Honduras
    Hungary
    Italy
    Japan
    Republic of Korea
    Kosovo
    Latvia
    Lithuania
    Morocco
    Qatar
    Romania
    Saudi Arabia
    Spain
    Turkey
    United Arab Emirates
    United Kingdom
    United States

The White House is updating the list of countries supporting the statement here.

Hillary Clinton speaks out. As expected, Clinton weighed in on Monday following a meeting at the White House. She said that she supports the president's call for intervention in Syria and that she hopes Congress will do the same. She also stated that if Syria accepted a proposal to turn over control of its chemical weapons to the international community, that would be an "important step."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 04:57 PM

"Seems that Jim, in being so hostile favors war."
Seems to have escaped your notice Sanitary, but it's not a matter of "favouring" anything; stark, horrific war is very much a reality for hundreds of thousands of non-combatants being slaughtered and gassed using weapons which may have been sold to him by the same western countries who are now sitting on their hands and claiming it is nothing to do with them; - are we to assume that this meets with your approval?
Britain is a country which once had a Prime Minister who claimed something similar when Hitler went walkabout around Europe - had that continued to be the case, six million would only have been the opening bid.
Are you really suggesting that Assad was not the one who gassed all those people - and even in the remote chance that it wasn't, doesn't Homs and Aleppo and all the other forerunners to what has recently happened indicate that,
A - He isn't a man we should have had anything to do with and,
B - Having done so, we bear much of the responsibility for his behaviour.
One thing I do understand is that communicating with cousins across the pond like your good self makes incidents like Columbine far more explainable.
You are pompous, arrogantly self important and as far up your own arse as you could possibly get without giving yourself a lump in the throat - totally immune to the suffering of others and a real credit as a human being!
By the way - you asked me a question earlier and I responded - I take it my answer wasn't to your taste?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: A better calculus RE: Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:23 PM

Obama is not a linear thinker. When he said he may change his calculus in the Syria matter I think he meant it.

What actions could lead to the best of four worlds, US, Syria, Russia and the entire Middle East region?

With the use of back channels with Russia Obama could pull off a magnificent beneficial strategy for all concerned.

Watch closely because even if the CIA was trying to pull off the oldest lie in the book by blaming "the other guy" for what they have done or if rebels screwed up intentionally or not, Obama could pull off a three way victory in the chemical weapons controversy.

Obama could have asked Russia to appear to commit a magnanimous act that would raise the status of Russia and appear to supersede the US in effective solutions to the Syrian use of chemical weapons by asking
Russia to take possession of the Syrian chemical arsenal.
Maybe even Snowden could be part of the deal down the road.

The #1 benefit for Obama is that he has brought the constitutional tradition of having Congress decide on warfare in cases when we have more than 7 minutes to respond. Since WW II this tradition has been virtually ignored to the peril and treasure of the United States and has brewed severe blow back over the decades.

#2 Warfare is averted and Russia becomes a closer partner in dealing with our shared enemy of terrorists in the region.

#3 Taking away an arsenal is at least some action to punish Assad for breaking an international treaty.

#4 While the deal is classified the votes by Republicans will have primary repercussions next year and in 2016 no matter how they vote. Republicans will vote hypocritically and Obama will have Congress to point at whenever the failure to lead memo pops up.


Problems do not need an either or solution but can be solved with a good ol quadratic equation that does good on several levels at once.


On the bad side it does bring up a history of the US selling and helping Saddam Hussien use Sarin against Iran despite the international treaty banning the manufacture or use of chemical weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:31 PM

From ABC News:

" If Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gives up his chemical weapons, a military strike would "absolutely" be on pause, President Obama said today.

"I consider this a modestly positive development," Obama told ABC News' Diane Sawyer in an interview at the White House when asked whether Syria's apparent willingness to relinquish control of its chemical weapons would prevent a U.S. strike.

"Let's see if we can come up with language that avoids a strike but accomplishes our key goals to make sure that these chemical weapons are not used," the president said.

Obama's comments come after the Russian foreign minister suggested today that Syria could avoid a U.S. attack by turning over its chemical weapons stockpiles over to international control and destroying them, a proposal the Syrian government "welcomed." "

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:35 PM

There is plenty of room to think strategically and in a hopeful manner in such a way that many interests can be served in a positive way and more lives will be saved. ( try it, its fun )

I believe that Obama knows how to not repeat the thinking and actions of history. No doubt there are factions of power that want him to repeat the past but a clever man can outwit them at their own game.

It may cost a little political capital but the on going good of a clever solution will out weigh that in the time it takes the United States of Amnesia to forget.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:31 AM

Just heard an interview with the man who devised the plan for the attack on Syria.   He says in fact that his plan was meant to be put into effect before this; now it's too late.

He also predicts that, now, the Russian offer for negotiating a solution whereby Syrian chemical weapons are put under international control, then destroyed will cancel any plans for an attack by the US.    Instead, he says, what is likely is that there will be months of negotiations--at the end of which nothing will have changed:    i.e. Assad will still have his chemical weapons.

Sounds like he has it right.

This is actually good for Obama--there is no way Congress would have authorized the strikes he wanted.

And he will still have some political capital.






Anybody who doesn't like it:   too bad.   That's the real world.



Syria in almost all respects has been the anti-Libya.    So the result was bound to be vastly different.

The main question now on Syria is whether the foolish proposal to attack has so alarmed Congress that it will not even authorize the needed arming of the Syrian opposition not allied with al-Queda.    The al-Queda branch of that opposition now has arms, discipline, and a plan.    The rest of the anti-Assad forces have very little of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 02:19 AM

Good post Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 07:41 AM

One very important thing might change.

Given Obama's expressed determination to act - perhaps even without Congress - Assad would be stupider than usual to use his chemical weapons while negotiations appear to be occurring.

In effect, the "red line" will have been reset.

Will Assad launch another chem attack anyway? Maybe. But now that he's agreed in principle to the Russian response to John Kerry's proposal, he would be taking an even graver risk of Western military action than what he faces now.

Everyone can save face here, if that's what they want to do.

But an offer to negotiate hardly means the end of the crisis, the civil war, or its eventual repercussions.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 08:05 AM

IMO most players were looking for a "way out of a "no win" situation for any political interest, without loosing face". That is why it was grasped on (regardless of whether it will be effective in curbing what may be a whack of chemical weapons in Syria). It likely does not change what some see as a bloody "civil war" and likely merely postpones future political conflicts over some of the broader issues.

What is clear to me is after frustrations of little gains with military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Lybia, western citizens are tired (at least temporarily) of old military approaches and futile direct intervention in the affairs of others. As one USA citizen stated on CNN, "why does the USA act as if it is the policeman of the entire world". Maybe the citizens actually "get it", and the politicians will eventually see the light?

A good question: is the re-rise of Putin and Russia in International affairs temporary? If so, is it a good thing as a counter-balance (as Galloway has claimed)? Or, will it lead to another arms race and a second cold-war type of situation.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 09:38 AM

- wonder where our resident prat got the idea that the Tea Party were the Tea Party were the only ones supporting intervention - strange world!!)

No-one said that Jim.
The Tea Party and UKIP are AGAINST.
That was my point.
And, that most Mudcatters aligned with them on this.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 10:56 AM

Ah..could it be that cooler heads are prevailing?
I think Donuel's post...
...From: Donuel
...Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:23 PM

...Was excellent!

Jim, just in case you actually read the last few posts, you'd see that there are others who leave an open door, to the possibility, that it wasn't Assad who ordered the chemical attack...which so happens to be JUST ONE, of the obstacles.

Jim Carroll: "Are you really suggesting that Assad was not the one who gassed all those people - and even in the remote chance that it wasn't,..."


Not only am I 'really suggesting it' There IS reason, it seems, that many countries have questions about it. I laid out several possibilities on several posts..and YES..there is reason to believe that they weren't the ones'...and the war rhetoric should calm down, until they discover, without a doubt, who did it....unless they already know, but need the excuse to occupy Syria, too.

Donuel posts: "Watch closely because even if the CIA was trying to pull off the oldest lie in the book by blaming "the other guy" for what they have done or if rebels screwed up intentionally or not,..."

There is also the Galloway link, that you should have watched.

I agree that this could. and should be done diplomatically...but then we don't believe them, nor they, us...and both sides certainly have a point!

BTW, its almost a year since Benghazi...and our illustrious intelligence community, still have not arrested anyone...and Susan Rice lied at the U.N. ...and got caught lying..so, YES I'd rather see them do this..............................

.....................................................

(continuing this morning):

Syria has agreed to turn over their chemical weapons to Russia...as you may have heard.

Do you think they will actually do it??...

..and moreover, would they do it, IF they were the ones using them???????

Just a thought...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:23 AM

"Syria has agreed to turn over their chemical weapons to Russia.."

Not quite.

"Syria agrees to put chemical arms under international control"
CBC News

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:01 PM

"There IS reason, it seems, that many countries have questions about it."
Apart from the intriguing thought that Assad might have discovered a new ally, you (apparently deliberately) miss my point - gas is only the latest of a long list of war crimes and should he continue, not only will the death count increase, the reputations of the U.N., Britain, America, and all those countries that have both helped his regime and ignores his war crimes will sink even lower; - win-win, I think they call it.
My point again:
"Are you really suggesting that Assad was not the one who gassed all those people - and even in the remote chance that it wasn't, doesn't Homs and Aleppo and all the other forerunners to what has recently happened indicate that,
A - He isn't a man we should have had anything to do with and,
B - Having done so, we bear much of the responsibility for his behaviour."
One of the problems of course is that the U.S. has used it's vetoes so often to protect monsters like Israel, that it is difficult to point the finger at Russia and China to protect this particular monster without appearing...., what's the word I'm looking for?   
His atrocities turned a democratic protest into a civil war; it needn't have happened had the U.N. or failing that, the West intervened - the West bears some responsibility for his crimes - your own "Land of the free and home of the brave" has a long record of supporting monsters who might have something to offer in return.
There would have been no hesitation in intervening had it been in the U.S's interest; is this the flag you are proud to live under?
"The Tea Party and UKIP are AGAINST."
Meaning - can't answer for UKIP but the Tea Party are certainly against and were described as being yesterday, "Isolationist" was the term used - what on earth's your point - that I should change my mind because the political loonies disagree with me?
As for those on Mudcat - fine, we argue and disagree, you appear to hide behind the opinions of others to attempt to stifle opposition.
Speaking of which - I am fascinated to discover how you will handle the fact that Israel supports Obama in his efforts to intervene; change of heart on your part or will you take your head out of their arse long enough to call them "gung-ho, militaristic and warmongering" - now what's it to be, "is it Bill or is it Ben?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 02:27 PM

Jim, I have been arguing all along that Obama's proposed intervention, despite uncertainty of outcome, was less harmful than doing nothing.
I have been in favour of the proposed intervention.
You have been in favour of an actual, boots on the ground invasion.

UKIP is the only party opposed to an intervention, along with the Tea Party.
It is interesting that most Mudcatters find themselves aligned with UKIP and the Teas who they usually so disparage.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 02:35 PM

I don't know anything about the UKIP, but it is probably incorrect to say that the "Tea Party" opposes a missile strike.

The Tea Party is a loosely organized faction of the Republican Party. It is not a party in the sense that it runs candidates on it own or has a "spokesman" or "chairman" in any official sense. Many Congressional Republicans aligned with the Tea Party may oppose intervention but not all.

There are also Democrats who are opposed. Unusually for these days, the split is not along party lines.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:14 PM

Tea Party Groups Nationwide Unite Against American Attack on Syriawww.breitbart.com/.../Local-Tea-Party-Groups-Around-the-Country-Uni...‎Cached

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guset from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:24 PM

Lighter: "There are also Democrats who are opposed. Unusually for these days, the split is not along party lines."

Agreed! There is NO party line of demarcation here....There is just too many people opposed to it, regardless of party affiliation...which is a GOOD thing!..Finally!!
Maybe common sense and sanity will trickle into people who may start to see that "The Party", is a bogus way to corral non-thinking people into more easily managed groups of morons!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 05:54 PM

"But of course that would have no detrimental impact on the health of the Iraqi people as it wasn't fired by the US or any of their allies."

Yes, DU has a detrimental effect which has been documented on the people of
Iraq, irrespective of who used it. To say otherwise is lunacy.

I want to thank Jim for clarifying the role Israel is playing in world affairs.
One thing not mentioned by the main stream media is that the supposed evidence
for the use of sarin gas was supplied by Israeli intelligence. This is what Kerry and others are quoting.

What is not known because evidence has not been presented to the UN is who did it. Kerry and Obama say "trust us" in the same way GW Bush said it about weapons of mass destruction which turned out to be false.

"The Tea Party is a loosely organized faction of the Republican Party."

The Tea Party is actually a corporate sponsored entity, a PR campaign by big business started by Milton Friedman, the father of Libertarianism, a lobbyist and tool of big business and his associate George Stigler. It was never a populist movement but was falsely advertised as such by lobbying groups as the National Association of Real Estate Boards headed by libertarian Herbert Nelson who was unhappy with rent controls. Since then it has grown to be a front for GM, Chrysler, Ford, Standard Oil, Gulf Oil, Sun Oil, major retailers, Montgomery Ward, Marshall Field and Sears; chemical majors Monsanto, DuPont, and Fortune 500 companies, GE, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly, BF Goodrich and Con Ed to name a few. This is not mentioning the Military Industrial Complex corporations who stand to make a bundle by war in Syria.

The Foundation for Economic Education, a big business project finances the Tea Party, and has ties to the John Birch Society through Robert Welch. Herbert Nelson, of the National Real Estate lobby said, "I do not believe in democracy. I think democracy stinks. I don't think anybody except direct taxpayers should be allowed to vote. I don't believe women should be allowed to vote at all."

Billionaire Peter Thiel financed the Ron Paul campaign in 2012.

The Tea Party's only reason to oppose the invasion of Syria is to get Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 06:53 PM

Sneetches

:)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 07:04 PM

"I have been in favour of the proposed intervention."
"WHAT??
What happened to "Gung-Ho? Militaristic? The sneering and suggestions that I was the only one who wanted "intervention" - that is the word that I have used throughout this thread and the Syrian Chemical attacks one - you have never at any time even remotely suggested intervention.
It is pointed out that Israel supports intervention and you are screeched into another U-turn because your pathetic tongue is so far up their arses that you have no alternative but to follow them.
"UKIP is the only party opposed to an intervention, along with the Tea Party."
Are you totally insane
CAMERON WAS DEFEATED IN PARLIAMENT - YOU EVEN SNEERED ABOUT IT ON THE SYRIAN CHEMOCAL ATTACK THREAD AND APPEARED TO TAKE PLEASURE IN THE FACT THAT THE SYRIAN PEOPLE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE MASSACRED - OBAMA SCRAPED THROUGH CONGRESS AND IS PREDICTED TO LOSE THE SENATE VOTE, NOBODY HERE HAS EVEN REMOTELY BACKED INTERVENTION YOU HAVE CONSISTANTLY POINTED OUT THAT I AM ALONE IN WANTING INTERVENTION AS IF THAT WAS A FACTOR IN MY OPINION
You really are a piece of work.
My continued asking you if you have no self respect has now become a rhetorical question - you haven't
Are you surprised that nobody takes any notice of you on this forum?
Please **** off you sad, sad little man.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 08:15 PM

Not a question of people who are sceptical of the idea that military interventin will do more good than harm being "aligned with UKIP and the Tea Party". It's a matter of being in agreement with the great majority of people in the UK and USA, as demonstrated in numerous polls of public opinion.

Military intervention leads to a number of possible outcomes. One is that it makes no difference to the war. One is that it actually strengthens Assad, by bringing increased backing from Russia. One is that it brings about an Oppositin victory.

And an Opposition victory is likely to mean a regime in power dominated by Al Qaeda (or by even worse possibly) or a puppet regime dependent on continued outside to survive, as is the case in Afghanistan. And as in Afghanistan that support will be remved and it will rapidly collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 02:59 AM

Agree all that McG. but the fact remains that Lib., Lab and Con leadership were all in favour of Obama, and UKIP against.
It is also a fact that the Teas also oppose.
Thus our liberal-left find themselves aligned with UKIP and Tea Party who they always ridicule, and opposing Obama and Hollande, both of whose elections they hailed as a breakthrough for the Left.

On the biggest world issue of the moment, that is a remarkable situation, isn't it?

Jim, as ever you misjudge me.
Too blinded with hate to read and take in what I actually say.
Everyone else on this thread knows that I have supported Obama's proposed limited air and missile strike, though without enthusiasm.

What I have opposed since you first proposed it, is your advocated invasion of Syria by US and British troops.
I think it mad.
On ME issues you lose all rationality and reason.
Just deranged hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:12 AM

Here you go Jim.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:59 PM

He has used nerve gas before, on a smaller scale.
The response of the West was exactly what you are advocating we do again.
Nothing.
The result was a bigger atrocity next time.
Why should we expect a different result from the same response?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:19 AM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 03:50 AM

"As has been noted, there is precisely no upside to the US becoming involved in the Syrian civil war."

If chemical use could be deterred, that would be an upside.
That is the only stated objective.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:32 AM

"Jim, as ever you misjudge me."
Nope Keith, had to put up with your horrific and dishonest opinions for far too long to have done that - I suggest you trwl through your own postings before you go further down that road.
You are now down once again reduced to lying about your own statements and deliberately distorting those of others.
I used to hate your opinions, not you. don't know you Now I find you a pitiful self-destroyed wretch who nobody wants anything to do with.
"your advocated invasion of Syria by US and British troops."
What kind of moron are you?
Armed intervention was always on the cards in Syria, the only difference being that, had the U.N. voted to intervene, whosever troops went in would have done so with the U.N's blessing and under their control.
What did you think would have happened, that all those little be-suited men in U.N. headquarters would have gotten off their bums and marched into Syria as a man waving bits of paper - dickhead!!
Now, thanks to U.N. inaction and world indifference the alternative being considered is U.S. air strikes.
We can only hope that if this is what happens, those strikes are strategically directed to cause the most persuasive damage with the least civilian casualties, and not indiscriminate or 'friendly' fire -Stop lying and think - and stop making this about you.
You appear to have reached the conclusion that the only way to gain any attention here is to lie in volumes and make more and more horrifically stupid statements - stop trying to wreck yet another thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 08:46 AM

Jim, you demanded that US and British troops should invade even if UN was paralysed by vetoes.
You said that the vetoes were just an excuse for inaction.
You are mad.
Your last posts were just raving.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 08:58 AM

Ah -you've woken up; was beginning to think we'd lsot you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 10:59 AM

"DU has a detrimental effect which has been documented on the people of Iraq, irrespective of who used it. To say otherwise is lunacy. - Stringsinger

Why only the people of Iraq? Why are there no great peaks in the incidence of these detrimental effects in the places where these munitions are made ( surely the fabrication process must produce DU laden dust that would be ingested) or more on a parallel with Iraq why are there no similar statistics to those in Iraq evident in the areas around the live fire ranges in the UK and in the USA where hundreds of thousands if not millions of these DU rounds have been fired at armoured targets in practice over the last three or four decades by aircraft, helicopters and the crews of MBTs and AFVs?

Can I offer a partial explanation?

Related to the areas around the ranges on the Solway and on the South coast of England (Bovington and Lulworth) we've had nobody manufacturing chemical and biological weapons and attempting to test them and get rid of them on the QT at either location as was the case in and around Fallujah. We've had nobody deliberately poisoning the ground water at either location as was the case down in Southern Iraq around Basra between 1991 and 2003.

Ah but of course in your book, as neither of those causes can be laid at the feet of the big bad USA they cannot be causes worthy of a mention - all detrimental effects have to be down to the use of DU.

Oh by the way the sum total of DU ammunition fired by UK forces during the invasion and occupation of Iraq (2003 to 2011)amounts to:

As far as 120mm munitions go - Full outfit of ammunition of not quite two Challenger II MBTs.

As far as 30mm munitions go - About 5 minutes firing of a CIWPS chain gun or Apache Helicopter cannon.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 11:22 AM

"Can I offer a partial explanation? "
Any chance of an explanation for your nonsense on the U.S use of chemical weapons - don't suppose so really
Should really stick to operettas if you cant handle the army me old chocolate soldier
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 02:44 PM

Here's a delightful little reminder of how the USA's imperial wars are started, from the not-too-distant past. Watch it and learn. Enjoy the exquisite sense of deja vu as you watch:

George Bush's Ultimatum to Saddam on 3-17-2003 on CBS

Same propaganda technique. Same specious moral posturing. Different administration & party. Different target. Same basic intention: to deceive and to conquer.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 05:56 PM

"If chemical use could be deterred, that would be an upside.
That is the only stated objective."

The U.S. always thinks that bombing a country will deter use of weaponry. It's because
that's what it always does and hasn't stopped war or created peace since. Instead, it has become immune from international laws and treaties about war and acts with impunity
in whatever way it likes. It uses chemical weapons when it feels like it and in fact has
a stockpile of chemical weapons as does Israel, it's Siamese Twin, who refuses to sign
onto a convention to outlaw the manufacture as well as use of such weapons.

"Why only the people of Iraq? Why are there no great peaks in the incidence of these detrimental effects in the places where these munitions are made ( surely the fabrication process must produce DU laden dust that would be ingested) or more on a parallel with Iraq"

This is a specious argument. This is not on a parallel with their use in Iraq. And how do you know there is no deleterious effect on the people where these munitions are made?
This sounds like the consumption of propaganda the Brit military would like you to swallow.

" why are there no similar statistics to those in Iraq evident in the areas around the live fire ranges in the UK and in the USA where hundreds of thousands if not millions of these DU rounds have been fired at armoured targets in practice over the last three or four decades by aircraft, helicopters and the crews of MBTs and AFVs?"

There are statistics that are not necessarily similar to the use of DU's in England or the States but apply specifically to birth defects, deranged individuals, poisoned water and ticking time bombs for future generations of Iraqs. These statistics have been amply reported. Again, how do you know that there is no deleterious effects in the target practice using DU? Prove that if you can.

Depleted Uranium often can't be detected except with certain instruments. This is true of all chemicals related to nuclear weaponry or nuclear use in general.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 07:19 PM

They move "under the radar," in the words of a clandestine organization in this field. When they treat Syrians in Israeli hospitals, they make sure no visiting journalist learns details that will identify the patients to authorities back in Syria."

Israel's secret doctors


"Young #Syria-n treated in #Israel hospital: 'We were taught Israelis enemy, ruthless, harsh. Ive seen only kindness'"

Sasa Petricic Middle East Correspondent for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC TV News

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 03:04 PM

UK APPROVED SEVERAL CHEMICAL EXPORTS - Weapons link
RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR in London

British officials approved the ex¬port to Syria of more chemicals that could be used to make sa¬rin, a powerful nerve agent, than previously acknowledged, it has been revealed.
Five export licences were approved for the sale of more than 4,000kg of sodium fluoride between 2004 and 2010.
They were on top of exports approved last year of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride under licences but subsequently revoked on the grounds they could be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of weapons.
The five licences were re¬vealed by UK business secre¬tary Vince Cable in a letter to Sir Robert Stanley, chairman of the House of Commons commit-tee on export controls.
Mr Cable told Mr Stanley in a letter released, yesterday: "These licences all predate the conflict in Syria. They were is¬sued to two UK exporters for dispatch to two Syrian compa¬nies."
He added: "I am confident that each application was properly assessed to determine end
use and that the exports were for legitimate commercial pur¬poses, namely cosmetics and healthcare products. The vol¬umes of sodium fluoride cov-ered by these licences are con¬sistent with commercial use."

No evidence
Mr Cable said there was no evidence that chemicals exported from the UK had been deployed in Syrian weapons programmes.
Mr Stanley has now asked Mr Cable to disclose the names of the British companies that exported, and the Syrian companies that imported the chemicals. He has also asked the business secretary to provide full details of the cosmetics and healthcare products "for which the sodium fluoride exported under these licences was apparently going to be used in Syria".
Mr Stanley last week asked Mr Cable to explain why the government approved export licences previously acknowledged in light of the statement by UK foreign secretary William Hague to the Commons committees that the government would not issue export licences "which might be used to facilitate internal repression".
(Guardian service)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 03:53 PM

Jim, anyone following this debate will read both threads.
No need to duplicate your posts silly!

Extract.
Mr Cable told Mr Stanley in a letter released, yesterday: "These licences all predate the conflict in Syria. They were issued to two UK exporters for dispatch to two Syrian companies."
He added: "I am confident that each application was properly assessed to determine end
use and that the exports were for legitimate commercial pur¬poses, namely cosmetics and healthcare products. The volumes of sodium fluoride covered by these licences are consistent with commercial use."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 04:02 PM

I just hate when this happens...........right, AGAIN!!!


...Same as the other post in the 'other' related topic....
....as you were saying????


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 05:09 PM

If in fact it is true that Israeli doctors are helping Syrian patients, then this is a promising event. This can't be construed to say that Israel has nothing to do with the escalating conflict. The Israel lobby has a powerful presence in the White House.
Noam Chomsky says that the influence of the Israel lobby is overstated because Israel is a satellite of US power and it's priorities are addressed to the extent that
the US is in agreement with its wishes. Even though Israel is not the major force in bringing the US to the brink of war, Assad's actions are the main factor, the dubious Israeli intelligence has an influence.

Brigadier General Itai Brun stated in a lecture, "To the best of our professional understanding, the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons. The fact that they have used chemical weapons without any appropriate reaction is a very worrying development because it might signal that this is legitimate."

It was a stronger suspicion than those expressed by the UK and France. It was aimed at Obama to get him to move militarily and back up his "red line" statement.
Obama said that the US was not only awaare of Israel's intelligence gathering in Syria but that it relies on it. Obama's administration released an intelligence report with high confidence but the report was general in nature. Some of the intelligence had been omitted "to protect sources and methods".

As a result, Obama is under attack in Israel saying he is acting as "betrayal" and "cowardice in the face of evil". Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post, "Weak world response on Syria boosts chances of strong Israeli action on Iran. That kind of dallying is not the type of behavior that will instill confidence in Israeli leaders that they can count on the world when it comes to Iran."

At Haaretz, Amos Harel claimed "Arabs percieve Obama as weak" but he doesn't say which Arabs.

Israel is ginning up for a war on Iran if the US doesn't act militarily in Syria.
AIPAC is pushing for authorization. The attack on Iran is being held over the head of the Obama administration. When Kerry talked to Netanyahu, he said, "I don't know yet what the facts are. I don't think anybody knows what they are."

Here's what Israeli intelligence did. They tried to link the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
to Al Quaeda. This places doubt upon their credibility and the reliance of the US on it.

Israeli intelligence driving war

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 08:17 PM

Touch wood, it's looking possible we might get out of this without a potentially catastrophic military strike by the US. It's a bit reminiscent of the Cuban missiles crisis.

If the chemical weapon stocks are destroyed and Syria signs up to the ban on their possession the only justification for an attack would be symbolic punishment, aimed at proxy victims rather than the actual culprits - whoever they might be. That wouldn't make any kind of sense, moral or pragmatic.

The key thing to remember in all this is that Russia doesn't want chemical weapons being used or being liable to be use any more than anyone else. And getting rid of the stocks in Syria would eliminate the nightmare of them becoming available to the kind of regume we can likely expect if the opposition wins.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 08:34 PM

Here's an idea that I suggested way back during the mad-dash-to-Iraq: one bullet...

Of course the usual suspects, some who are still here on this thread, going, "How barbaric!"... Plus "It's illegal"...

Here's the deal, people... Between killing one person and a million I come down on the side of killing one person...

I'd bet that deep down inside that even Teribus would look back on how things transpired in Iraq and admit (no, not publicly) that I was right way back then...

So, you don't like Assad??? Kill him... Don't bomb Syrian people who ain't him...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 09:30 PM

I rather imagine there are a lot of people who would do that if they could.

But as the CIA demonstrated in the case of Fidel Castro over the years, it's not that easy. They are estimated to have made some 638 attempts...

Whether it would do a scintilla of good in the case of Assad is pretty questionable. I suppose it could make it easier for people to cut a facesaving deal with his lieutenants.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 03:12 AM

" "These licences all predate the conflict in Syria."
And you still defend Britain's trading chemical weapons to the country with;
"One of the worst human rights record in the world, second only to Korea"
The below report came out around the time Britain licensed sniper rifle ammunition to Syria and predated the sale of essential components for the manufacture of saran weapons by about eighteen months
Think I'd rather be "silly" than truly evil, as you appear to be.
Jim Carroll

"According to the 2008 report on human rights by the United States State Department, the Syrian government's "respect for human rights worsened". Members of the security forces arrested and detained individuals without providing just cause, often held prisoners in "lengthy pretrial and incommunicado detention", and "tortured and physically abused prisoners and detainees". The regime imposed significant restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association, amid an atmosphere of government corruption.[15] According to Arab Press Freedom Watch, the current regime has one of the worst records on freedom of expression in the Arab world, second behind North Korea on Earth.[citation needed]According to Arab Press Network, "despite a generally repressive political climate", there were "signs of positive change," during the 2007 elections.[16] According to a 2008 report by Reporters without Borders, "Journalists have to tightly censor themselves for fear of being thrown into Adra Prison."[17]
In 2009 Syria was included in Freedom House's "Worst of the Worst" section and given a rating of 7 for Political Rights: and 6 for Civil Liberties.[18] According to Human Rights Watch, as of 2009 Syria's poor human rights situation had "deteriorated further". Authorities arrested political and human rights activists, censored websites, detained bloggers, and imposed travel bans. Syria's multiple security agencies continue to detain people without arrest warrants. No political parties were licensed and emergency rule, imposed in 1963, remained in effect.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 03:15 AM

Oh - not forgetting your proposal to sell him riot control equipment
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 04:10 AM

I am not responding to this tosh on BOTH threads!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 07:14 AM

Which conspiracy theory are you claiming you were righht about, gfs?
I guess this means you saw all the evidence quite early before coming to your conclusion, gfs. WHat a good jurour you would be in a trial. One newspaper clipping stimulates thought - but, is hardly a good standard to base a conclusion on.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 10:39 AM

Assad has a long track record of international violations and it stems back to when his father ruled Syria. They, until recently, were supported by the US as it did with Pinochet in Chile when the assassination of Allende on the first 911 was organized by Nixon and Kissinger. Ironically, Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, Obama.

The way to curtail Assad and other dictators is to employ sanctions and isolate them through diplomatic means. The problem is that the US backs these monsters until they are no longer useful to "American interests". This has to stop.

The UN is an imperfect organization with wrangling, diplomatic snags, arbitrary veto powers but in spite of this, it's the only avenue for settling world affairs that would potentially have efficacy. The US has lost its brokering ability in the Mid-East. Russia has defended the Assad regime. There are ways that Syria could be isolated but the problem started with the violence perpetrated on behalf of Assad's administration and the Rebels. This is also what is tearing Egypt apart, violence as a means to an end. Violence has destroyed the Arab Spring. The military in both Egypt and Syria have taken control and non-violence is no longer an acceptable method of solving the conflicts.

A strike on Syria is pouring gasoline onto an out of control blaze.

The solution is to look to an obscure individual living in East Boston, Gene Sharp who has the most practical prescription to ending these conflicts. He is only one person in a long line of legitimate political thinkers.

The US will become weaker in its influence if it carries out John Kerry's wishes.
Hillary is no better. The "hawks" have to stand down. Finally, the US public is beginning to see the futility of their approach. They have to realize the money that is connected to the military manufacturers and this relates to the John Robert's decision that money is speech and corporations are people. The US public now maybe able to connect the dots. Taxes are going to munitions not to the flagging economy.

Sarin is only one weapon of choice and a red-herring. Drones are equally destructive. Agent Orange, Napalm, Depleted Uranium, Atomic bombs, White Phosphorous, not to mention the standard weapons that kill civilians in the Mid-East.

The US desperately needs in the executive cabinet a Department of Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 02:50 PM

Something that the politicians have not been telling the public much (if anything) about is that Syria cannot destroy its stocks of chemical weapons in a few days...or indeed in even a few months...because its a very difficult, slow, and costly process to do so, no matter who does it. This is why the USA and Russia, for example, still have much larger stocks of banned chemical weapons in their inventories than Syria does, and have been trying to destroy those stocks of chemical weapons for decades...and are far from finished doing so.

Here's an article that explains some of the difficulties:

Destroying Syria's chemical weapons - length of time needed to do so.

It is literally impossible for Syria to dispose of their chemical weapons quickly, even with massive foreign assistance from Russia or other powers, and it will probably take years to do it.

The western politicians are not making these facts plain to their own public when they pressure Syria for quick results to something that cannot be done quickly by anyone, let alone the Syrians, who are embroiled in a civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 06:44 PM

GUEST,Ed T: "Which conspiracy theory are you claiming you were righht about, gfs?"

The only 'conspiracy theory' is that, it has NOT been determined who set off the chemicals, as of yet! ALL those who are calling for 'action', when who set them off, are involved in the 'conspiracy theory'! It has not even been proven that Assad had anything to do with it...and that is just not my opinion!

Go figure!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 08:15 PM

The key thing would be to make it impossible to deploy the lethal chemical weapons. That should be a more realistic possibility in a short timescale.

Though the possibility of using much more primitive ways of deploying the poison cannot be dismissed - and that is what those accusing the rebels of carrying out the atrocity are evidently suggesting they did.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed (
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 09:26 PM

My last post was blank- any conspiracy folks read anything into it yet?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 02:07 AM

Naw..You were just speaking your mind!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 04:01 AM

Very good point Little Hawk, I have no doubt that the time scale required will soon be used as "an excuse for non compliance"

Remember Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 07:02 AM

Nice to see you self identify as a conspiracy guy guest without much sanity , as you confessed that you were out in the woods with the lunatic fringe- even though it is clearly evident from your frequent "lunatic " posts.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 08:49 AM

Get a grip Ed....didn't have you down for name caller.
Thought we had got rid of that nonsense on the "respectful boundaries" thread.
Just read and give your own views, they will be heard "respectfully"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:37 AM

Everybody is "a conspiracy guy", because conspiracies exist. It's just that some alleged conspiracies don't. There are plenty that do, in both private and public life..

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:56 AM

McGrath of Harlow, Yes, I suspect folks many folks do have conspiracies on their mind, now and then. Most folks keep them to themselves, to avoid being viewd as "lacking in logic". But, posting odd conspiracies broadly, and attaching odd linkages (linking fact with fiction), to me, puts you in a different catagory.

akenaton, Yeah, I guess you are right on that one, maybe I got carried away in a quick response. (many, even thoase considered "reasonable posters", have been caught up in the "heat of the moment" in the past, in varying degree of course). What seemed me me like merely back and forth "toying" with "an annoying gent" could seem like "that" to those not tied into the two-way conversation. In the future, I will keep a more careful eye to it and heed your advice - thanks for that.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:11 AM

Last Guest was me, of course- minus cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:25 AM

I don't believe this has yet been pointed out;   people seem far too interested in grinding their own axes, especially hypocritically asserting that the US has a duty to bomb Syria, or on the other side the knee-jerk anti-military reaction-- or senseless attempt to blame Israel for everything-- that we've come to know and love on Mudcat.

But I heard another story --on the BBC world service, I think--which supports my theory that Syria is the anti-Libya.    And for an obvious reason:    Putin in particular, as a big Who fan (not the Doctor), feels he was burned severely by the outcome of the Libyan crisis and is determined to not let that happen again.    Neither Russia nor China tried hard to prevent the international attack on Russia's client state, Libya under Gaddafi.   Now we have another Russian client state, Syria under Assad.    This time Russia will do all it can to prevent an attack, especially a multi-nation attack.   So far Putin's plan is a smash hit--and he even gets to play the voice of reason, while portraying Obama as the classic warmonger.

Now all he has to do is make sure the negotiations now starting go nowhere. Piece of cake.    And of course when the negotiations do collapse there is no way Obama will ever be able to convince the US public to support an attack on Syria by US missiles or something similar.

And there is even potentially something for Obama in this--which we see already;   he is claiming that without US pressure the negotiations to put Assad's chemical weapons under international control would never have started. Never mind that all sides aleady recognize these negotiations have virtually no chance to succeed.

At least Obama gets a chance to back off from his stupid and hugely unpopular plan to attack Syria, and instead concentrate on other issues---everything else. If Obama has as much sense as I think he has, he will start to push immigration reform hard--this is a a win-win for him (and for the US) and a lose-lose for the GOP.

Ironically enough, Putin has not only helped himself but pulled Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So everybody wins--except of course the victims of Assad's chemical attacks.   Will there be more chemical attacks in the future?    Who knows?   But my guess is that is up to Putin;   when he says jump, the only question for Assad will be how high.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:29 AM

No problem Ed, if it had been any of the usual suspects I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it.
Just seemed a bit out of character for you....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:31 AM

"already recognize"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 11:35 AM

You are the one who is labeling people as 'conspiracy theorists'...are you trying to start your own conspiracy???...
..FACT IS, with all this blathering about chemical warfare, and we know that Syria(among others) have them, NOBODY has come up with ANY proof that Syria is the one who used them.

Maybe someone should look into the '(among others)'. Who has the most to gain???....Let me see....umm......Russia, for wanting more influence in the Middle East?...Hmmm..How about the U.S. for needing an excuse to tap into the largest oil reserves in the world, right here??...The rebels for...ummmm........ummmm.....needing more 'bad press'? Assad, because he already had them on the run??....Yeah That's IT !!!..They weren't running fast enough!
Follow the money, and you'll get to the motive!
(But then, money is not the end goal, just a tool to gain power).
I'll leave the rest to the 'conspiracy theorists'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 12:00 PM

""NOBODY has come up with ANY proof that Syria is the one who used them"".


Is that a fact, gfs - I note you do use the word "any" quite loosely. An odd approach for a person who accuses others of "jumping the gun" and advancing conspiracies. It is totally unreasonable to submit that some folks "in high office" have presented such proof to those in positions of trust in their governments, but not made it public - or to you directly and the public just haven"t seen it? Do you actually believe what you read in the media is thee full, unbiased information on reality?

In the world of high tech surveillance, very little escapes those with the technology and people in the right places to report back. Do you actually think that everything the Russians, the Iranians, the Syrians, the USA'ers, Israel has learned through various forms of espionage is actualy put in the public domain, to compromise such operation?

You seem to state out of one side of your posts that "we don't know, yet you tip the scales on the other side to say that Assad did not do it. Where is the proof that this is based on?


I suspect there are plenty of reasons to distrust what is put forward by those on all sides, and likely reasons that may seem quite strategic to them (at the time of the incident) to take such actions. Have you been personally briefed by all the parties involved on this, gfs?

A good question is who benefits the most out of what is occurring now, as it has evolved?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 12:07 PM

So now there is an "agreement" between the US and Russia on removing and destroying Assad's chemical weapons. Sure there is.

Let's see how this so-called agreement is enforced.   Proof of the pudding...

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 01:30 PM

If conspiracies didn't happen there'd never be any bank raids - just for a start. Wouldn't be any banks either I feel tempted to say. "Commercial confidentiality" is the polite term used.

Gadaffi's Libya was every bit as much a "client state" of Western countries as of Russia. Though the terms not really too accurate - your client state would do what you wanted. If anything the relationship was the other way round, with other countries treating Gaddafi in a way designed to help them get cooperation on oil supplies.

I've still got a feeling that the only plausible explanation for the gas attack could have been people within the Assad regime aiming to get rid of Assad and getting control of a post civil war regime.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 03:38 PM

Ed T: "I note you do use the word "any" quite loosely. An odd approach for a person who accuses others of "jumping the gun" and advancing conspiracies. It is totally unreasonable to submit that some folks "in high office" have presented such proof to those in positions of trust in their governments, but not made it public - or to you directly and the public just haven"t seen it? Do you actually believe what you read in the media is thee full, unbiased information on reality?"

I reiterate: "NOBODY has come up with ANY proof that Syria is the one who used them".

McGrath of Harlow: "If conspiracies didn't happen there'd never be any bank raids - just for a start. Wouldn't be any banks either I feel tempted to say. "Commercial confidentiality" is the polite term used."

Ahh!...McGrath has hit on it, but not quite far enough...but he does make the most sense, and closer to the pulse than the rest...and lays the premise!!
This stuff in the Mid East, is not as much about 'boundaries', and 'countries', (as we know it, and led to believe), as it is about the monetary systems, who controls them, and their interests....and when the MAJOR bankers are fighting for control, nations are merely their pawns...including ours and yours! The control (or disposal of it)of the Mid East oil would definitely give 'certain' banksters leverage and advantage. If the major oil companies, in league with those same banksters, could disrupt the Mid East, while an alternative suppliers is waiting peacefully or more stably, ready to go....that would certainly be an incentive.
Now Anyone who doesn't think those same banksters don't have the resources to 'hire' anyone, countries, agencies, or mercenary groups to pull this off, is a tad bit on the naive side of reality..don't you think? This may be bigger than a lot of you have thought through..after all, we were actually hearing sabre rattling to the tune of WWIII.....and planners of that could easily anticipate WHO would emerge, ready to implement whatever financial system they want...and what form it should be, and who is on top.
I believe they are working for that goal......and so are the other ones, who are at war with each other.
Now, does that sound like a 'conspiracy theory'....or just a logical account of where we are now?? There is far more proof of that, than there is of Assad launching the attack.

OK, you can take your naps, again......McGrath, you scored big on that one!!.....and I've been sitting on posting what I've just posted for MONTHS now....since the 'Keystone Pipeline' thread, where I first made mention of it......and when push comes to shove Obama, if he's still in power, and the timing is right, WILL   sign off on it!!

Cheers!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 04:16 PM

Reiterate as much as you want gts, it does not change anything in the what you posted;)

My observation is that I suspect you may be confused with the words and concepts of proof and evidence? Evidence is often provided. Proof is another matter, and sometimes is never found to the level that satisfies some.

There are different standards and personal bias used in determining proof, from evidence provided (which may or may not involve past histories and likely intent and benefit of the parties involved.(Take the example of the OJ trial. Evidence was provided, which was enough for the level of proof required by the jury. But, the level of proof provided in the trial differed in the population - it was either enough evidence or not enough evidence for to be considered proof of his guilt by so many people, I suspect depending on their perspectives and personal bias).

IMO, you have shown your anti-USA administration bias in posts and in other threads. So, I suspect the level of evidence you would reflect this bias and require what would seem quite high to me, and possibly some others. Even if evidence were provided to meet whatever your standard may be,(if you even know this standard) I suspect you would busy yourself finding one or more "conspiracy theories" in one or more on-line media or opinion report to rule it out anyway,then lift the standard to and prove you right. IMO, being right, versus finding the most likely scenario, seems to be one fuel that stimulates your fire.

So, given this observation, please explain the point in participating in any logical discussion with you on what may or may not be evidence contributing to group speculation on the most likely candidates in launching the chemical weapons (from the likely lot) with you?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 06:38 PM

OK...
What is YOUR evidence that Assad launched the attack??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 08:22 PM

GFS, thanks for asking.

I don't know who launched the attacks - though I am interested, and have no personal theories nor bias (that I am aware of) that leads me to convincing evidence on any of the possible candidates.

I am interested in other unbiased perspectives that would lead us all to the most likely candidates - as much as we can speculate from our secondhand information sources and our logic.

My initial comments on this (and the related thread) were an attempt to open up reasoned and logical dialogue on the issue, without baggage, as I have no favourites and have no association with the USA, nor Britain (well,outside the fact that I live in the western world, not Russia, nor the middle-east - and I am not a Muslim, nor Jewish, and am not communist leaning).

I am very interested in mudcaters objective and logical views on who could benefit (without the "favourite team" baggage). Unfortunately, many on this and the related thread - including both of us (yes,that includes me), have wasted our resources on approaches that will never lead to much. What a pity.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:00 PM

That last post, Ed, seems to suggest you see "communist leaning" as still having some kind of relevance to Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:01 PM

Here's one thing that cannot be disputed... Two weeks ago before Obama attended the summit in Russia and had a private little talk with Putin nothing was happening that could be construed as positive...

No one here knows what Obama told Putin but what ever it was worked... In less than a week Putin and Assad were playing nice...

No shots fired... No boxes filled with dead Americans at Dover Air Force Base...

Obama get's some credit here, Obama haters... No war... No trillion$$$ run thru the shredder... No Americans shot at...

Thems is the facts, people... You may like war instead of diplomacy and maybe some back room hoodwinking by a clever Obama on Putin but I'll take Obama's approach over the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle/Rice model any day of the week...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:14 PM

GfS, I can't remember which thread I made some comment about both if us burning in hell. Do you remember which one it is?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:37 PM

Maybe it seems so to you McGrath of Harlow but it was not intended as such. Just meant I have no leaning in that area (if it matters to anyone). Thanks for asking, rather than thinking I am suggesting something which I did not.

However, in a related matter I remain uncertain as to where Putin is taking Russia internationally, as I am uncertain as to how China is blending the concepts of capitalism. I couple of weeks ago I feared the emergence of another cold war type of scenario with more than two involved. I am a bit relieved today - but maybe it may only be temporarily postponed?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:29 PM

Bobie, I feel that what Obama likely did is very similar to what Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. Used the back channels. Because his guys in the Pentagon were being very aggressive and really trying to push him into a rash and ill advised war with Russia. It was all resolved behind the scenes and I think that's basically what happened here too.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:46 PM

Thank God John McCain doesn't have his finger on the button. Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 02:46 AM

Bobert: "Thems is the facts, people... You may like war instead of diplomacy and maybe some back room hoodwinking by a clever Obama on Putin but I'll take Obama's approach over the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle/Rice model any day of the week..."

What do you mean that you like Obama's 'approach' better than the 'other list'?? Are you trying to say the 'others' were better liars??. Actually, they all score about the same...you don't see it, because you only want to believe that one of them isn't a lyin' bastard...with a hidden agenda...Then again, if you weren't such a political party driven fanatic, you'd be blind in just one eye!

Obama's 'handling' of this has been a joke! You must be the ONLY person on the planet that sees him as some sort of 'wizard of diplomacy'...rather than 'blithering from duplicity'. Putin is making 'hay' out of this, and making Obama look like a dizzying idiot!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 03:18 AM

Suzy Sock Puppet: "GfS, I can't remember which thread I made some comment about both if us burning in hell. Do you remember which one it is?"


Subject: RE: BS: LSD keeps you sane
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:39 AM

I don't know GfS, so far I have failed to recognize you as evil incarnate. That can only mean one thing. I am evil too and just don't realize it yet and one day we will rot in hell together with the rest of Satan's spawn. Cheers.


...and here's to ya'..."Cheers, To a quick plague, and a bloody war!"


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 05:48 AM

On the subject of the chemical "attack", it is interesting to note that the Assad Regime has intimated that some of their chemical weapons capabilities lie in "rebel controlled areas".
This would suggest that the case being made by the West, that the regime were the only ones in possession of such weapons, is either mistaken or false.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 07:10 AM

Well, of course they would have to say that....duh, otherwise they would be admitting culpability. Is there any evidence for it though - that is the question.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 09:08 AM

Obama to the usual washrag, crybaby GfinSs and his right wing, Obama hating MudKK buddies, "Check mate"...

No new war, no wasted $2-3T, no boots on the ground, no missile attack, control of Assad's chemical weapons...

Nice work, Obama... That's why they are into their hissy fit mode...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:00 AM

Come on Bob ole buddy, this is a serious business, we should be debating things!
I admired Mr Obama for his unwillingness to be dragged into Libya
He showed the same spirit on Syria to begin with, he then changed his mind on evidence that still has to be proved......that's when I lost confidence in him, the strikes he was proposing were ill considered and could have easily led to an international confrontation.

We should never be involved in something like that on what appears to be a personal whim, or orders from "higher up" the party machine. Only a blunder from Mr Kerry and the swift intervention of Mr Putin saved us from the law of "unintended consequences"

I'm afraid Mr Obama is fatally weakened by this exchange and we can expect to see someone like Hillary the Hawk represent the centre right of the Democrats in the next election.

Politics is a filthy game played by equally filthy people, I just wish more GOOD folk like yourself would see it. I see a definite "anti- politics" change happening here in the UK, the excesses of the last decade are being recognised the public are at last becoming politically aware and many are very angry indeed at the way in which they have been manipulated....at last they seem to realise that changing the name on the packet does not affect the taste of the contents.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:23 AM

Hey, Ake...

Is it possible that Obama has played Syria 100% correctly???

If you listen to the same old losers who hate Obama their narrative is that Obama has blown in on Syria...

Sometimes it takes finesse to get a desired result... Obama is a very intelligent guy who knows how to keep secrets... If he had told his critics what he was up to then it wouldn't have worked... But he played it real close to his chest and got the best results from a slobber knocker where there were no good options...

I mean, it's okay to think "Geeze, maybe what the right wing is saying is just sour grapes"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:27 AM

From what I read, it seems that the rebels are not a unified movement with the same goals, beliefs, vision for the future Syria, friends or even approaches to the conflict. The only thing that seems to unite them is removing the Assad regime. So, considering them as a united front seems like going down the wrong path when looking for their potential involvement.

There are reports that outside fighters tied to Al-Qaeda type movements are involved in anti-Assad actions. I suspect these folks do not support interests of the USA or the west.

The same goes for the other side in the conflict. Assad mostly has control of his forces, but it seems that Iran has a major influence on Hezbollah, that currently fights the rebels in support of keeping Assad in power. It is likely that both Iran and Hezbollah have broader interests than only what occurs in Syria and do not seem too warm to western countries influence in the region (especially those linked to Israel). With USA concerns over potential actions over it's nuclear program, Iran gains when another front opens for the USA and an additional wedge is placed between the USA, Russia, China and USA allies. USA looses much credibility when it uses bombbs- at home and abroad.

Many previous USA military involvements in other countries have been conducted with much PR to get the public (USA and potential allies) and political support. This one was different, as the Obama team seemed unprepared and faced an uphill battle. That leads me to believe that the administration was not involved. It is possible that rogue elements within the USA government was involved, but they seem more under control of the government in power than the past.

It is just as feasible that rogue elements within the Assad regime (for example the military)were involved, but unlikely that the regime would not know, or at some point know about it (considering the control he seems to have). Getting the USA mired in another unwinnable conflict could be a goal- especially when Russia is on your team as a friend. Sending a warning message (that chemicals are in your arsenal) to the rebels is another potential reason to use them in a small test situation.

There are plenty of potential groups among the potential that have little concern for civilian causalities in obtaining a broader goal. Additionally, all Syrians are not friends, civilians or otherwise.

I don't know who did it- just letting my mind wander a bit over potential candidates and potential reasons they may (or may not) have..

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 12:16 PM

L.H., that's a good point. But destroying chemical weapons is a red-herring. The U.S. has used them in Japan, Vietnam, and Iraq, and probably is using them in Afghanistan.

Chemical weapons are not necessarily any worse than the drone strikes or cluster bombs and the idea of moralizing about "rules of war" is absurd. All weapons in war will kill innocent people.

A "limited strike" is as General Zinni said is like "being a little bit pregnant".
Striking Syria with a missile is an act of war regardless of how Kerry attempts to spin it. It's an illegal act in the international court of law.

There is no reason why a madman like Assad will refrain from using whatever weapons he wants to regardless of whether his country is attacked or not.

"This would suggest that the case being made by the West, that the regime were the only ones in possession of such weapons, is either mistaken or false."

Ake is correct. The US and it's satellites possess chemical weapons that have not been destroyed but remain as part of a "deterrent" arsenal. Even worse than sarin is the dangerous stockpile of nuclear weapons in the US, India, Pakistan and North Korea. This nonsense about worrying whether Iran can obtain them is political grandstanding by elite administration officials that have ties to the MIC.

What Assad has done is horrific of course but breaking Syria as the US did to Iraq will only foster ugly reactions worldwide by extremist groups, now the major population of the Syrian Rebels. There are very few moderates with weapons in their hands.

As to Putin, it probably seems cogent to the casual observer that this man speaks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to human rights. His persecution of "Pussy Riot" along with his harsh treatment of gays and LGBT folk shows just how much he is exempt from Russian "exceptionalism". Don't expect democracy from those quarters.

Obama is trying the old lame "carrot and stick" approach to diplomacy, often referred to as "gunboat diplomacy" which never works. He could drop the "limited strike" canard in favor of shoring up international support for an economic sanction against Assad, which he may be doing. The problem is that the US
can't be an honest broker in any peace negotiations which may have to be moved out of the country to Denmark or some other more neutral place.

As to proof or evidence that Assad used sarin, that information is "classified".
This is reason for some to question the statements of Kerry and Obama. The problem with the propaganda statements being made by "authoritative sources"
is that there is a lack of transparency in the state department which makes any
declarative news item suspect.

All weaponry used to slaughter innocent people whether intentionally or not
is a form of insanity. The idea that there are "rules of war" is risible.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 04:54 PM

It is possible Bobert, but whether true or not, it has certainly weakened Mr Obama politically.

I usually like to see all politicians weakened by events, but without a coming together of Left and Right against the atrocities committed in the name of Global Capitalism, I can only see a bleak future for the ordinary folks of the US and the UK.

Can you think of anyone with the vision to unite your country? It would have to be someone from without the political classes, probably a woman, and someone with a little faith.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 05:40 PM

Music?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 08:38 PM

Guess what, Ake... Given the level of obstruction that the TeaPubs have thrown at Obama, who cares???

Obama isn't going to get one thing thru this Congress no matter what it is...

Obama don't gibe a flying fuck about politics at this point because the numbers don't add up to try politics... That is long gone as an option in the US and that isn't going to change until we fix out broken legislative branch...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 08:49 PM

I would think that this could well strengthen Obama in his last few years as president. It would be possible to present it as a kind of rerun of the Cuban missiles crisis, in which the president held his nerve and kept his cool, and got an acceptable settlement out of a potentially disastrous situation. West Wing stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 10:35 PM

Don't know if this has been noted yet.

From "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", which as you know would never make up a story just for humorous effect:

Somebody--can't remember who-- was quoted as saying:    "Why is America going to war against Siri?    After all she's just an i-Phone app."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 11:21 PM

Now it's the Tea Party's fault??????????????????????????????????????

That's what I call brain damage from partisan politics!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 12:23 PM

That guy Kerry is a serious liability....why on earth did Mr Obama appoint him?...

At a press conference this morning he was asked what they intended to do to protect the Christian minority in Syria, and he started to ramble obviously unaware of which faction was a threat to the Christians.
He finally plumped for Mr Assad's regime and promised that he would make sure that Assad was weakened and could no longer be a threat to the Christians.

Mr Obama should tell him that the Christians have been living well and safely in Syria well before Mr Assad's father was in power.

Of course everybody but Mr Kerry knows that the people who are slaughtering Christians, looting and destroying their houses and churches, are those he is in the process of assisting to power!

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable.
The whole administration appear to be incompetent and ill equipped to handle this crisis

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 02:25 PM

The American people have spoken. Poll after poll shows that they don't want war. If you lob a missile into Syrian territory, this is a declaration of war. Kerry is deluded.

The word is out on the Cuban missile crisis. It is not being hailed as the macho thing it appeared to be. Turkey had American-made missiles pointed at the USSR and this was
the reason for missiles in Cuba by the Russians.

If Obama takes the US into war, there will be a tumultuous reaction and his legacy will be like that of GW Bush. It may already be that due to drone strikes and rendition programs, not to mention the use of torture, undue surveillance and attacking whistleblowers.

Don't count on Hillary having an easy time as a result.

Personally, I no longer call myself a Democrat but an Independent like Bernie Sanders.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 04:12 PM

Stringsinger: "Personally, I no longer call myself a Democrat but an Independent..."

Welcome to the club!!!.....However, you will probably be accused of being a 'right winger', 'KKKer' or 'Tea Partier' by some of the 'less endowed' on here. To them everything not out there in 'left field' or out of the ballpark, is a flaming right winger!!

But take heart, consider yourself, as I've been saying.."I'm NOT with the party, I'm in the band!"...and more than likely, that is the truth!!!!
Now about that 'other matter'....give Seeger a call!

Regards!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 04:29 PM

Yes Frank.... we were aware of the situation in Turkey at the time, though the mainstream media never mentioned it.
Good for you, we need more Independents. People who see beyond the Party Line.
Mr Obama has not been "hog tied" by the Tea Party or conservatism, but by his own "liberal" ideology, this Syrian crisis is an excellent example of an administration which doesn't really know what it stands for.
Is it "war", "peace", "democracy", "equality", "minorities" or it's own people.
They need to understand that every minority is not of value to society, every minority does not deserve promotion or defence.

The people who lead the rebellion in Syria would slaughter all who did not share their beliefs, given the chance.
When they rule, as someday I'm sure they will, does anyone think that they will hold any finer feelings on the "rights" of infidels.....I think not, I'm afraid it will be the breadknife across the throat for us.

We were supposed to be sowing "democracy", but will reap terror.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 05:29 PM

""There are reports that outside fighters tied to Al-Qaeda type movements are involved in anti-Assad actions. I suspect these folks do not support interests of the USA or the west.""

I am particularly bothered by the fact that elements of the rebel forces have taken time off to go slaughter and dispossess Syrian Christians, who are not part of their target group.

One has to say that neither side in this fight is attaining to, or even seeking to attain to, the moral high ground and that neither side is particularly appealing as a potential victor.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 05:42 PM

""That's what I call brain damage from partisan politics!""

Well GfS, if you have managed over the last six years to miss the Republican stone walling of every single Obama initiative, as well as missing the point that those initiatives were all intended to benefit the citizens of the USA, while the avowed and acknowledged Republican intention was "To stop Obama and to Hell with the citizens", then perhaps the brain damage is closer to home than you think.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 06:56 PM

No Brain Damage here, Don....I don't believe either side!
The puppet masters are beating the shit out of the American people with them. All they do is make excuses for the liars that they elected, then fail to see that the 'other side' has been having to do the same thing!

Music!...It doesn't lie!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 12:25 PM

The word is out on the Cuban missile crisis. It is not being hailed as the macho thing it appeared to be. Turkey had American-made missiles pointed at the USSR and this was the reason for missiles in Cuba by the Russians.

True enough, but not too relevant - the point was, it looked like war, and it ended with a stand-off which played very well for Kennedy at the time. (Not so well for Kruschev, rather unfairly perhaps, since he achieved what he wanted, no further invasions of Cuba, and reduction of the threat from US missiles in Turkey.)

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:10 AM

"played very well".

The parallel is in fact not there.

Obama is seen as the stupid sabre-rattler--even by some of his supporters.    Kennedy was not seen that way at the time.

It is quite unlikely that this incident will strengthen Obama in the least politically.   It was a waste of political capital-- and time--for a president who only has a prayer of being effective for about the first two years of his second term.

Could it have been worse?   Sure, if there had been an actual vote by Congress it would have been a disaster for Obama---and a huge waste of political capital and time.

But he has not precisely covered himself in glory on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 03:47 PM

Kennedy distanced himself from the "Bay of Pigs" which he was instrumental in organizing.
It's a case of another political leader stepping in front of the parade.

Chemical weapons as a pretext for war won't work with the US public today because it has become transparent that the US, due to its debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention Vietnam, doesn't have a political or moral leg on which to stand. Besides, the question is begged, who had these chemical weapons in the first place and how did Assad get them?
Russia? China? The US? Israel? The questions are still unanswered.

We know how Hussein got them. Rumsfeld has pictures of himself shaking hands with Hussein. The US supported Hussein as well as Assad until either became less of a toady
for US foreign policies. Let's face it. The US has a history of supporting dictators until they attempt to overthrow our own.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 04:53 PM

Be under no illusions, the people being assisted by the West in Syria, are the very same people who are slaughtering civilian men, women and children in Nairobi.....They will never stop.
The "Arab Spring" so lauded by our "democratic" leaders and some here, has turned out exactly as I said it would.
All order has been removed and we have helped to create a huge nest of terrorism.

It is my opinion, that this state of affairs has been created intentionally, but perhaps most here will see my view as "conspiracy theory"?.......Do you think our leaders are so stupid and incompetent, that they did not realise what was about to happen?

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 10:58 AM

"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"?"
No idea - but not to take the first step means that they forever remain the same
They get criticised for being what you claim they are - they take steps to change and you're still whingeing - what do you want them to do, wait for the 7th Cavalry - take on good ol' General Westmorland's suggestion in Vietnam and "Nuke 'em into the Stone Age"?
"I am a better Socialist than you Jim,
Don't know any socialists who hate homosexuals or immigrants, but then, it is possible I've led a very sheltered life
"I am aware of its faults as well as its virtues."
Me too, the difference being that I welcome it as a first teetering step - you bury it before it gets off the ground.
"Jom - we haven't sold arms to Assad - not even "sniper rifles to practice with".
Turpitude - why did you suggest it in the first place then and suggest "that's what snipers do" - you've had my answer on the other thread - won't hold my breath....
Of course - you're the one who attempted to pass off napalm as merely petrol, Agent Orange as "herbicide" and white phosphorous as "harmless illumination" after you had been shown photographs of Palestinian children with their faces burned off - all matter of semantics I suppose!
"I agree with you that the West should not get involved."
You were vociferously claiming that you supported Obama's decision (but only after Israel had given you the go ahead) - getting a bit dizzy with all these wheelies and u-turns.
Are you now saying the US, the UK and Israel were actually WRONG in proposing intervention - now there,s a first, second and third, all in one sentence!
I assume we've moved away from non-chemical chemical weapons, have we?
First Laurel and Hardy, now The Three Stooges - which one's Mo - I always liked him?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 11:53 AM

You were vociferously claiming that you supported Obama's decision (but only after Israel had given you the go ahead)

I have been completely consistent throughout.
No intervention in a civil war.
I supported from the start Obama's decision to punish the use of poison gas, but not "vociferously."
Just reluctantly, as the lesser of evils.

Anyone following the debate knows all that.
Lying does you no credit.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 12:01 PM

Then you are saying that you disagree with Israel and Obama when they support intervention - do I have that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 12:05 PM

The "first step", can often be the first step off the cliff Jim.

I have known that Capitalism was wrong all my life, but only recently has it been made obvious to all, by its failure in the West.
It is a roulette wheel and we are on a losing run. I look back on all the great men who have fought against it....but the people wanted another spin of the wheel.

I have come to believe that all things will evolve if they are positive and not against natural law.....it just means that we may never see the sort of world that we would like to live in.
Patience is a virtue.

Hate homosexuals?.....I don't think sex between men is safe or healthy, but isn't that different from "hating" homosexuals?
Hate immigrants? I don't believe we should pursue a policy of unregulated immigration, but isn't that different from "hating" immigrants?

What do you, Ian and Richard actually mean when you use the word hate?
Is it simply a "get out", a substitute for reasoned debate?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 01:17 PM

Then you are saying that you disagree with Israel and Obama when they support intervention

Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view.
I do not know what Israel supported.
Are you sure their government expressed an opinion?
Can you post it for us?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 07:46 PM

"Can you post it for us?"
You've had it - am tired of posting an re-posting stuff you either don'tread or refuse to comment on when you have been given it - Israeli policy is freely available - as if you havn't looked it up already - how on earth would you know who to suppors if you didn't get your instructions from above?
In the meantime - some examples to your support!!!! for intervention
Sleep well now
And b the way - the air strikes
Jim Carroll

"Jim, you have previously advocated Western military intervention against Assad.
Has you view changed in light of recent events."

"Sorry to disappoint Jim, but no-one is advocating invasion.
Except you, obviously"

"No-one is advocating intervention in their war.
Just to send the message that they can not gas civilians with impunity."

"We can not intervene in every dispute and perceived injustice in every country."

"No intervention in a civil war."

"I agree with you that the West should not get involved."

"Still advocating an invasion by Western troops, or will you be satisfied with a time limited missile offensive?"

"No-one on Mudcat came out and said it was not our concern whether gas, germs or radionucleides rained on innocent families, but now they are outraged that Obama assumed decent people would support him."

"Not withstanding Cameron's defeat, UKIP was the only British party opposed to the intervention.
In US, it seems to be the Tea Party.
And most of Mudcat are with them!"

And then spectacularly
"Everyone else on this thread knows that I have supported Obama's proposed limited air and missile strike, though without enthusiasm."

"Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 08:00 PM

"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!!""

So. what is the record of western intervention explained off as a cure "
for these ills in recent history?

Western powers have intervened mostly where there is a clear econonic/political interest,and rarely beyond that (not, to help those impacted by dictatorship, torture or massacre).

Note, thatI do not focus on western government's record of propping up "strong man dictators" as was done in central and south America (and Africa) for years, under the guise of curtailing "the commie boogie man".

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 08:59 PM

"but does it really benefit the people of Syria, Libya, Egypt to rise up against the power of extreme Islam?"

That's not what's been happening. Syria Libya and Egypt were all secular dictatorships, as was Iraq (and for that matter Iran before their revolution), and extreme Islamists were an important element among those rising up.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:00 AM

Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing, not an invasion.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view.

I think you are wrong about Israel supporting Obama's proposed strike.
A false memory Jim?
It was predicted that there would be reprisal attacks on Israel, and there was a hurried distribution of gas masks, so I am sure most hoped it would not happen.

I may have forgotten, but I think you are wrong again Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:58 AM

"I may have forgotten, but I think you are wrong again Jim."
No Keith - you are trying to get yourself off the hook for your spectacular U turn - it was pointed out to you that Israel suppaorted Obama and suddenly you supported Obama - you have been given your dogged opposition to any form of intervention on the other thread sheesh!!!!
Jim Carroll   

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/pro-israel-lobby-rallies-behind-obama-in-support-of-strike-1.1521297

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:00 AM

BBC today.

The UK is to give another £100m to Syria to help tackle the war-torn country's humanitarian crisis.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the pledge - which takes the total from the government to £500m - showed the UK was "leading the charge" to help.

Speaking from New York, Mr Clegg said: "We cannot avert our gaze from the Syrian people, especially children."

The £100m will go to agencies providing food, clean water and shelter to four million people displaced by fighting.

Mr Clegg, who was addressing a marginal meeting at the UN General Assembly, said: "The need for this funding is clear.

"Millions of people find themselves in an absolutely appalling humanitarian situation, through no fault of their own.

"The UK has been leading the charge to alleviate suffering through the Syria UN appeals.

"But there's a huge gap in what's needed. I've been pushing other countries at the UN General Assembly to help meet the shortfall."

International Development Secretary Justine Greening said Britain's humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis was its largest ever because "sadly it reflects the scale, despair and brutality of what's going on".

Oxfam's chief executive Mark Goldring welcomed the extra funding, saying it would make a "real difference in getting basics such as food, water and medicine to many vulnerable Syrians".

"The UK government is showing international leadership on supporting the UN appeal which is still less than half-funded. The UK government has acted, now other countries must follow," he added.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:07 AM

Has there been any public statement by Netanyahu or any government minister about supporting Obama?
No.
Private conversations?
Just speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:05 AM

Yoy've been given this information hence your screeching U-turn from total opposition to intevention
"We can not intervene in every dispute and perceived injustice in every country"
You now seem to be attempting to pretend you didn't know to hide your total sycophantic subservience to Israel
Jim Carroll

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=24105
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/pro-israel-lobby-rallies-behind-obama-in-support-of-strike-1.1521297
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.545616

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:17 AM

Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing, not an invasion.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view.
Not once.
No U-turns, screeching or not.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:53 AM

"I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war."
You did NOT - you opposed all forms of intervention and described such an act as "Gung-Ho invasion"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:14 AM

Sorry Mr McGrath, that was clumsy of me.
What I meant was, that those who rise up against a secular dictatorship, always seem to end up under an even more dictatorial "extreme Islamist govt"

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:56 AM

You did NOT - you opposed all forms of intervention and described such an act as "Gung-Ho invasion"

Correct.
I still do, but from the day Obama proposed a limited strike to deter use of gas, I supported that.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:36 AM

Yeah - sure you did!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 09:04 AM

Make me a liar Jim.
Find me ever opposing Obama.

Obama never wanted to intervene in the civil war, like me but unlike you.
Obama made gas use a "red line" and proposed a limited strike to deter further use.
Without enthusiasm, I believed him right.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 10:42 AM

"Make me a liar Jim."
You've done that far too often yourself
World inaction turned protests into a civil war manipulated by Assad and facilitated by arms provided by Capitalist countries like Russia and Britain (with her "sniper bullets", riot control equipment and armoured cars)
You have not only opposed ANY FORM OF INTERVENTION from the beginning of the Homs thread, but you have invented my position and others by describing any form of intervention as "Gung-ho invasion" when all wewere calling for was military intervention to stop the massacres - that was and remains my position - you have even called those of us who wanted this intervention "fascists and Imperialists".
I have never at any time advocated "invasion" and have expressed my mistrust of the U.S. setting foot on anybodies territory with their track record.
I am far from happy at them going in anywhere, I am less happy, with their record of "friendly fire" bombing anyone from the Air.
My argument has been that Assad should be stopped both for humanitarian reasons and because of the fact that we helped provide him with his lethal toys.
That is your "fascism", "Imperialism". "jackboot=ism", "Gung Ho-ism". - show me where I have ever suggested anything else.
Your response to these suggestions makes if clear that you have always opposed any form of intervention - right up to the point Israel called on support for the "intervention" that you are now (apparently) supporting.
Bombing from the air is the only offer on the table now - inaction has left no other alternative, though it is a cowardly choice.
I posted a list of your quotes last night - they seem to have not got through.
I won't bother again unless you continue to claim you have always supported intervention - this time I will dredge the Homs thraed and also provide the dates that you made your U-turn
There is no need to make you a liar - that is part of what you do all the time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 12:08 PM

Military intervention has historically never worked to eradicate any weaponry.
In fact, it generally increases its use. Exponentially.

World War II lead to the development of nuclear weapons prominently featured in
the later "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Hitler's "secret weapon" was discussed
at the close of the World War.

The only reasonable invention must be made by outlawing all weapons of war,
not excepting any one of them and adopting diplomacy instead.

You can't stop a fire by starting a blaze. Even back fires of containment will not stop fire from spreading in other places.

World War I was supposed to be "the war to end all wars". How did that work out?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:41 PM

Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing, not an invasion.
I thought that was right, as a lesser evil than gas becoming an accepted weapon of war.
That was, and is, the only intervention I have supported, and I have not once changed my view.
Not once.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:58 PM

"Obama's proposed intervention was a limited air and missile strike to deter more gassing, not an invasion. "
Doesn't matter what it was - you described any form of INTERVENTION as Fascist - Imperialist - Gung-Ho amd INVASION until Israel gate her support, then you ran and shoved your tongue up her backside unless she caught a cold from the draught.
You are a waste of space - you make things up, you lie, to chamge yopur mind when you are instructed to do so,you bring nothing to these discussions other than hastily gathered and selective cut-'n-pastes, and when you are caught out, you blame somebody else - I know, I know - "all lies"
IT'S ALL ON THIOS THREAD and any other thread you've been involved with lately
You don't even bother with your cut-'n- pastes much nowadays - too much effort
Go away      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:33 PM

If President Obama can turn this diplomatic initiative into a win, defined as UN officials being able to verify that all of Syria's chemical weapons are no longer a threat to anyone (which, had Obama gone with his first instinct to intervene militarily, would have been nigh impossible to do), then whatever political capital he invested would yield substantially better than average returns. Gains have already been realized with the American public who did not want to see yet another window cracked open to yet another endless vista of Middle East military involvement, to be played out on televisions all across America for who knows how long. And from an international perspective, US allies must see it as an admirable change from the typically heavy-handed application of foreign policy that America, at least temporarily, has deviated from the usual path of "shoot first, ask questions later."

As for as losing ground to the Republicans, Obama had no ground to lose insofar as the Republican party's instinctive reaction is to oppose any initiative Obama proposes, regardless. If he thinks it's the right thing to do, then it must be wrong. Still, had Obama initially sought congressional support for a military intervention in Syria, rather than taking the (diplomatic) road less taken, it would have been ironic to see the Republicans trip over their own hawkish feathers to vote against it.

Obama must be including Vladimir Putin in his prayers at night, for giving him the gift of an opening to let diplomacy work instead of having to face an intransigent Congress and his own party's war-wary constituency with a proposal that was universally unpopular.

And as an unforeseen dividend, a dialog with the Iranians over their nuclear program and the sanctions may even be possible. If this diplomacy thing works out, it may establish a precedent for future presidents (at least Democratic ones), as well as cement Obama's legacy as a team player on the global playground, rather than as a playground bully.

The only losers in this admittedly somewhat optimistic scenario, are the war materiel corporations (and their stockholders), who never met a military intervention they didn't like. This diplomatic thing would play hell with their bottom line. Here's hoping that it does.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 07:33 PM

Did anyone see former USA president Bill Clinton on Pierce Morgan last night? He gave an interesting perspective (IMO) on Putin (from his direct experience with the man in the past), what Putin likely considers in the Syrian situation, and how he dealt with him in the past.He also talked about the current approach to curbing the chemical weapons. I suspect it is online somewhere, if not the network site.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:01 PM

An update to the situation in Syria (remember Syria?) - it's a sad and sorry tale of betrayal: How Barack Obama sold out Syrians to appease Iran

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Iains
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 04:09 AM

IF the link above is supposed to be reality then I will have to start believing in Snow white and the 7 dwarves.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:28 AM

Bubo always has had overall problems with reality........

Here he's trying out for the BeardedBruce award.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:41 AM

As usual nothing of substance from Mr.F who shows us once again that he is incapable of an original thought.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:53 AM

Bubo, I think that pointing out that your link is bullshit, as several folks have done, is entirely substantive.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 09:11 AM

Greg, you have shown us by your posts that you don't know the meaning of the word "substantive".

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 10:07 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/report-syria-and-islamic-state-blamed-for-chemical-attacks/2016/08/24/29ca3d72-

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 10:22 AM


The Washington Post

PAGE NOT FOUND

We're unable to locate the page you requested.

The page may have moved or may no longer be available.
We want to help you find what you're looking for. Here are some suggestions:

Try another search:

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Iains
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 10:30 AM

Seems even the MSM has to withdraw it's blatant propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 10:53 AM

UN Report: Syria and IS Used Chemical Weapons In 2014 And 2015

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 11:09 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/report-syria-and-islamic-state-blamed-for-chemical-attacks/2016/08/24/29ca3d72-6a64-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html


Mudcat linkmaker truncvated it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Iains
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 03:13 AM

It is hard to give credence to these reports since the UN largely functions as the US whipping boy. The US by the way is warmaking illegally in Syria with absolutely no mandate to be there, thereby following a long tradition.
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

    China 1949 to early 1960s
    Albania 1949-53
    East Germany 1950s
    Iran 1953 *
    Guatemala 1954 *
    Costa Rica mid-1950s
    Syria 1956-7
    Egypt 1957
    Indonesia 1957-8
    British Guiana 1953-64 *
    Iraq 1963 *
    North Vietnam 1945-73
    Cambodia 1955-70 *
    Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
    Ecuador 1960-63 *
    Congo 1960 *
    France 1965
    Brazil 1962-64 *
    Dominican Republic 1963 *
    Cuba 1959 to present
    Bolivia 1964 *
    Indonesia 1965 *
    Ghana 1966 *
    Chile 1964-73 *
    Greece 1967 *
    Costa Rica 1970-71
    Bolivia 1971 *
    Australia 1973-75 *
    Angola 1975, 1980s
    Zaire 1975
    Portugal 1974-76 *
    Jamaica 1976-80 *
    Seychelles 1979-81
    Chad 1981-82 *
    Grenada 1983 *
    South Yemen 1982-84
    Suriname 1982-84
    Fiji 1987 *
    Libya 1980s
    Nicaragua 1981-90 *
    Panama 1989 *
    Bulgaria 1990 *
    Albania 1991 *
    Iraq 1991
    Afghanistan 1980s *
    Somalia 1993
    Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
    Ecuador 2000 *
    Afghanistan 2001 *
    Venezuela 2002 *
    Iraq 2003 *
    Haiti 2004 *
    Somalia 2007 to present
    Honduras 2009
    Libya 2011 *
    Syria 2012
    Ukraine 2014 *

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 08:25 AM

What say ye now deniers and apologists?

There is now, at last, conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) have used chemical weapons in Syria, nearly 2.5 years after I collected evidence that proved that Assad had dropped chlorine barrel bombs on the towns of Kafr Zita and Talmenes in Idlib province.

The much anticipated and now leaked report by the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Joint Investigation Mechanism (JIM) has at last concluded that both the Assad regime and ISIL have used chemical weapons on a number of occasions.

Al Jazeera

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 08:38 AM

"What say ye now deniers and apologists?"
Has here ever been any doubt?
Your two mates have been defending the fact that Britain supplied chemicals that could have been used to manufacture the weapons for over a year now.
Of course, Israel has been using chemicals against the Gazans and the Bedouins for far longer of course but this in no way excuses it's use by Assad, who has been a friend and valued customer for many decades.
"Israel has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).[19] In 1983 a report by the CIA stated that Israel, after "finding itself surrounded by frontline Arab states with budding CW capabilities, became increasingly conscious of its vulnerability to chemical attack... undertook a program of chemical warfare preparations in both offensive and protective areas... In late 1982 a probable CW nerve agent production facility and a storage facility were identified at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW agent production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry."[20]
There are also speculations that a chemical weapons program might be located at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR[21]) in Ness Ziona.[22]
190 liters of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of sarin nerve gas, was discovered in the cargo of El Al Flight 1862 after it crashed in 1992 en route to Tel Aviv. Israel insisted the material was non-toxic, was to have been used to test filters that protect against chemical weapons, and that it had been clearly listed on the cargo manifest in accordance with international regulations. The shipment was from a U.S. chemical plant to the IIBR under a U.S. Department of Commerce license.[23]"
ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 08:48 AM

Why do you bring Israel into a discussion that has nothing to do with it you despicable little Jew hating Nazi.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 09:33 AM

Of course, Israel has been using chemicals against the Gazans and the Bedouins for far longer of course

Israel has never used chemical weapons against anyone, but valiant attempt to obscure the fact that every day in Syria more atrocities are committed than Israel has even been accused of.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:43 PM

Ignore him Keith, posts like that are a sign his obsessive hatred is slowly making him insane.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:03 PM

"Israel has never used chemical weapons against anyone,"
Israel has used phosphorous against the Gazans and has used chemical spray aainst Begouin farmers in order to clear them from their farms
You wer given photographs of children with their faces half burnt away from the phosphorus and were linked to the reports of the methods used to expel the Bedouin.
But here is some more.
"Israel Lands Administration admits use of toxic chemicals to kill Bedouin crops
"The ILA has been spraying fields cultivated by Bedouin farmers in the Naqab with chemicals that have not been approved by the Agriculture Ministry and have been banned in use for aerial spraying. In February 2005, a senior ILA official submitted an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court of Justice, which is currently discussing a petition filed by Bedouin farmers against the ILA's crop-spraying policy in the Naqab. The petition, filed in May 2004, by Adalah, claims that "the spraying of crops endangers the life and health of human beings and animals, as well as their environment." Adalah submitted an expert opinion that stated that crop spraying increased the chances of birth defects and statistical likelihood of developing cancer. At the time the petition was filed, the court issued an injunction banning all aerial spraying and the ILA subsequently returned to its policy of ploughing. The aerial spraying is carried out by Chim-Nir, a private company based in Herzliya. According to the affidavit, the company used three different types of chemicals – Roundup, Typhoon and Glyphogen – all of which are derivatives of glyphosate. Between 2002 and 2003 the company only used Roundup, but in 2004 the ILA also used the two other chemicals. According to the director of the ILA's supervisory division, "the label on the Typhoon packaging does not specify any instructions regarding aerial sprying. This means that aerial spraying with Typhoon has not been approved."
Source: Ha'aretz, 16 February 2005"
source

"(Jerusalem) - Israel's repeated firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during its recent military campaign was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 71-page report, "Rain of Fire: Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza," provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government."
Human Rights Watch
DAYTIME USE OF "ILLUMINATING" PHOSPHORUS!!!
US COVER-UP
More photographic evidence - from the US
You've had this over and over again, but I'm always happy to oblige - as often as you deny it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 04:47 PM

An earlier posting
"I am fascinated that anybody should have made it their hobby to defend international war crimes and atrocities
Me too!
Who on earth is this person?"
Twigged now Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:18 AM

Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon.
The devices used in Gaza were smoke generators, and not actual weapons at all, but you will remember that I deplored its use in those circumstances.

Israel has never used chemical weapons against anyone, and is guilty of no "international war crimes and atrocities," unlike its next door neighbour that commits them every day while you always and only criticise Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:44 AM

"Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon."
Building bricks are not weapons, until they are thrown at people.
Phosphorus is shown in the photographs being used in daylight against civilians - it is chemical and is being used as a weapon against unarmed human beings - it is a chemical weapon - Israel uses chemical weapons and has been accused of doing so by respectable independent observers
What kind of human detritus defends such actions?
C'mon - give us a self description
More
Your defence of this horror is beyond belief
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 05:41 AM

HUMAN CONSEQUENCES of WEAPONS USED BY ISRAEL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 07:25 AM

Jimmy-boy,

And yet you NEVER complain about the use of ATOMIC weapons by the Palestinians.

After all, EVER knife and bomb they use to kill innocent civilians is made of atoms- so they MUST be using atomic weapons by what you say

THIS IS A WAR CRIME

For shame.

Your cover-up of this is beyond all belief. Your family and friends should shun you and still hang their heads in shame for even knowing you.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 07:31 AM

AND YOU still seem fine with the use of real chemical weapons on Syrians, as long as it is done by Moslems.




BTW, this is what Human Rights Watch has to say about your friends:

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/human-rights-watch-palestinians-abuse-media-activists/

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:27 AM

"Jimmy-boy,"
AH - Bruce the Goosestepper crawled out from under his stone
"And yet you NEVER complain about the use of ATOMIC weapons by the Palestinians."
Atomic weapons - that's a new one on me - enlighten me.
I know Israel attempted to arm the Apartheid regime in South Africa with Nuclear weapons - they declined, because they realised that they would have to hand them over to 'the blecks" when they were finally kicked out.
So Israel had to settle for setting up its own Apartheid State
What a sick, cowardly little man you are.
Chemicals that burn the faces off children (the Israelis havfe targeted schools with them) are chemnical weapons, pure and simple, and recognised such by the civilised world, which is why they have been condemned and all but banned.
"still seem fine with the use of real "
You mean "find", I'm sure.
I condemn the use of chemical weapons, whoever uses them.
I have ben an opponent of the Assad regime from day one (go look at the Homs Horror thread) - whole your two mates, Keith and Teribus, were defending (at the height of the Homs massacres) the sales of sniper ammunition,, armoured cars and riot control equipment - one of the tossers said it would be fine to sell them equipment to oppose the protestors as "even democratic countries have a right to keep civil order" (or some such crass phrases)
I think the Assad regime is a monstrous one and it's equally as monstrous for Britain to have continued selling them this equipment long after they knew of its human rights record.
Now - back under your bridge O Brainless one.
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:37 AM

Yet on this thread to discuss the SYRIAN conflict, you bring up another nation, distracting from the very real ( as even you seem to say) problem IN SYRIA.

This looks like you would rather criticize Israel than to discuss the greater killings in Syria by Moslems. Looks like your opposition to "War crimes" depends on who you can blame them on.




The UN has defined this sort of bias as
"ANTI_SEMITISM"


And you are providing a textbook case with your posting here about Israel, after your admission that you oppose the Syrian regime but would rather discuss Israel than engage in a discussion of that regime.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:40 AM

Latest reports are that 20% of the Syrian population are refugees who have left Syria, and about half of the total population has been displaced.


But Jimmy-Boy would rather have us discuss something else.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:54 AM

"Syria, a Middle Eastern country, has a population that's difficult to determine due to instability. Approximately 5,000 flee Syria every day. In 2012, the country had a population estimated at 22,530,746, and this number dropped to an estimated population of 22,457,336 as of September 2013. In 2016, further declines have led to an estimated population of 18,215,868.

Just recently, Syria was considered a rapidly growing country in the area, growing over 2% in 2009, and growing from just 6 million in 1971 to its current population of 18 million."


4 million left or killed!



Yet those evil Israelis are far more important to discuss- after all, they are killing off all the Palestinians, right, Jimmy-Boy?

Not quite:

Population (millions)(mid year)
Year         West Bank Gaza         Total
1970         0.69         0.34         1.03
1980         0.90         0.46         1.36
1990         1.25         0.65         1.90
2000         1.98         1.13         3.11
2004         2.20         1.30         3.50
2008         2.41         1.5         3.91
2010         2.52         1.60         4.12
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
2006         2.5         1.5         4.0
2009         2.48         1.45         3.94
Source: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:57 AM

Who the hell woke up BeardedBS ??? Things were bad enough before with Bubo.

Or perhaps the two of them are clones, taking turns.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 09:26 AM

Why are you trying to turn a thread about chemical weapons in Syria into another exercise in Israel bashing? You are becoming as hatefully obsessive as Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 09:30 AM

What kind of human detritus defends such actions?
I did not defend it. I deplored it.
Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon. Look it up. All national armies use it.
The devices used in Gaza were smoke generators, and not actual weapons at all, but you will remember that I deplored its use in those circumstances.
It was not "used against" anyone. It was used to produce a smoke screen

Israel uses chemical weapons and has been accused of doing so by respectable independent observers

Not true. Israel has never used chemical weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 10:35 AM

"I did not defend it. I deplored it."
You denied it, making your deploring it deplorable hypocrisy and totally meaningless
"Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon."
Posphporus used against civilians is a weapon and is illegal - Israel targeted schools with it
You are a deplorable hypocrite
"The devices used in Gaza were smoke generators, "
The devices used in Gaza were phosphorus weapons and condemned as such - you have the condemnation from Human Rights Watch
You are a deplorable hypocrite
"Not true. Israel has never used chemical weapons."
Yes it has Keith - you are a scumbag for denying it.
"you bring up another nation"
You were the first to mention the modern State of Israel (apart from Biblical quotes) as far back as (28 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM)
"No comment at all about the Palestinians that would be killed by any use by Syria or Iran of the WMD they have threatened Israel with."
Israel has been part of this discussion from day one and has been mentioned 333 time so far
Read the thread or get someone to read it for you Brucie
Stop scurrying behind thread drift - chemical weapons appears in the title and Israel's usage is a valid part of this discussion, especially as you were the one who brought it in. and were happy to use it when it suitd you
Somebody who has one rule for himself and another for the rest of us.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 10:52 AM

beardedbruce - 30 Aug 16 - 09:42 AM - Good heavens did Greg F. really put that in print? And he has the nerve to call others racists, well I never.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 11:16 AM

You denied it, making your deploring it deplorable hypocrisy and totally meaningless

I did not deny the incident, and I deplored that use of WP smoke.

Posphporus used against civilians is a weapon and is illegal - Israel targeted schools with it

No weapon should be used against civilians. Smoke as used in Gaza would not penetrate a building such as a school. The pictures show them bouncing off the roofs. A warning of the event was given with the advice to stay indoors and be safe.

The devices used in Gaza were phosphorus weapons and condemned as such

No they were not.

Israel has never used chemical weapons. That is a fact and calling me names does not change it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 11:47 AM

jimmy-Boyo,

"Israel has been part of this discussion from day one and has been mentioned 333 time so far"


YOUR mentioning it does not count- and I just reread day one and two, and there is no mention of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 11:53 AM

Good heavens did Greg F. really put that in print?

Actually, no, T-Bird. Its old BullshitBruce chopping up and re-combining posts & taking things out of context.

A tactic you yourself are quite adept at.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM

Yes, GregtrF did so.

First he made the statement that I had called someone a "Dumb Ni**er"

When I called him on that lie he stated that someone else had done so, so I was equally guilty.

When I told him to prove that ANYONE had stated that, he pulls out a quote (NOT FROM ME) that someone in the US who had done something stupid was "Black and a Democrat" , which he crowed proved his point as he read that as "Dumb Ni**er"

All documented on the threads involved. Unless GregtrF has had his supporting mudelves clean up past postings to cover his racism.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:23 PM

first mention of Israel was 25 Aug 13 0856 by Little Hawk, along with US and the idea of a false flag operation.
At 28 Aug 13 0401 PM I mentioned that the Palestinians were being ignored, as they were in danger if Syria or Iran used WMD (Which include chemical warfare) on the Israelis- ANY use in the region would put Palestinians in danger.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:48 PM

So, Jimmy-Boyo,

You are fine with the Palestinians being killed off by Syrian or Iranian
WMD, as long as those pesky Jews get hurt too?

I note your silence on ANY use of WMD that is not by Israel- and since the maxim of the law is "Silence implies consent" ...


But then you have never demonstrated any concern FOR anyone, just AGAINST JEWS.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:50 PM

YOUR mentioning it does not count- and I just reread day one and two, and there is no mention of Israel.
Maybe I shouls have said "week 1"
This thread Started 24th August 2013 - your Israeli intervention came on the 27th August - three days later.
Do not tell us where to make our postings, you dishonest Antisemitic prick
"I did not deny the incident, and I deplored that use of WP smoke."
Smoke which burned holes in children's faces.
Only an inhumanly sadistic bastard would attempt to call that "smoke".
What kind of people are you?
White phosphorus was used as a chemical weapon and children as well as non combatant civilians - schools were noted as coming under attack and being targeted
"The following are photos of an Israeli white phosphorus attack in a UNRWA school in Beit Lahia in Gaza. White phosphorus is illegal to use in civilian areas, and its use by Israel constitutes a war crime.
Two children were killed in this attack, a mother lost her legs, and dozens were injured. Others who inhaled white phosphorus fumes may only know the effect of the attack on their health in time.
Next time a Zionist apologist tells you Israel doesn't use white phosphorus in illegal ways, point them to these pictures, and let them try to deny the obvious."
You've been given the link

Israel's military fired white phosphorus over crowded areas of Gaza repeatedly and indiscriminately in its three-week war, killing and injuring civilians and committing war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today.
In a 71-page report, the rights group said the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells in populated areas of Gaza was not incidental or accidental, but revealed "a pattern or policy of conduct".
It said the Israeli military used white phosphorus in a "deliberate or reckless" way. The report says:
Israel was aware of the dangers of white phosphorus.
It chose not to use alternative and less dangerous smoke shells.
In one case, Israel even ignored repeated warnings from UN staff before hitting the main UN compound in Gaza with white phosphorus shells on 15 January.
"In Gaza, the Israeli military didn't just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops," said Fred Abrahams, a senior Human Rights Watch researcher. "It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren't in the area and safe smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died." He said senior commanders should be held to account.
Human Rights Watch called on the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, to launch an international commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of violations of international law in the Gaza war by the Israeli military and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls Gaza.
The Israeli military has defended its conduct in Gaza in the face of mounting allegations of serious violations of international law and said its soldiers did not intentionally target civilians. When Israel's use of white phosphorus emerged during the war, the military at first denied using the weapon, then said it only used weapons in accordance with international law. Later it announced an internal inquiry, led by a colonel, would be held.
INDISCRIMINATE USE of WHITE PHOSPHORUS

"We have seen Gaza used as a laboratory for testing what I call weapons from hell," said David Halpin, a retired British surgeon and trauma specialist who has visited Gaza on several occasions to investigate unusual injuries suffered by Gazans.
Times of London
Israeli soldier prepares a phosphorus shell. The pale blue 155mm rounds are clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made white phosphorus munition. - Times of London
"I fear the thinking in Israel is that it is in its interests to create as much mutilation as possible to terrorize the civilian population in the hope they will turn against Hamas."
Gaza's doctors, including one of the few foreigners there, Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian specialist in emergency medicine working at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, report that many of the injuries they see are consistent with the use of DIME."
USE of WHITE PHOSPHORUS, DIME and OTHER EXPERIMENTAL WEAPONS
Israel is an extremist, religion-based right wing state
It's possible stockpile of CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS make it among the most dangerous (if not the most dangerous) State on the planet
Jim Carroll




Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:20 PM

Like I said, Jimmy-boyo


Not one word of thousands of Kurds gassed, tens of thousands of Syrians killed, or any of the accused war crimes of ANY other group.


20,000 dead Palestinians- ok BY YOU, as long as it was Jordanians that killed them.


Launching rockets in schoolyards, a violation of the Geneva Conventions? OK by you, even better when they misfire and fall back onto the civilians around the launch site- THEN you can blame the Jews.



How many 100,000s of Syrians will you ignore being killed in order to attack Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:23 PM

More Syrians are now refugees driven out of Syria than the TOTAL PALESTINIAN population of Gaza AND the West Bank.

Yet Jimmy-boyo keeps repeating the same old attacks on Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:25 PM

Jim, Israel's side of the story from your first link,
"These shells were used for specific operational needs only and in accord with international humanitarian law. The claim that smoke shells were used indiscriminately, or to threaten the civilian population, is baseless."

The Guardian view as stated in that link,

"White phosphorus burns in contact with oxygen and causes deep burns when it touches human skin, sometimes reaching to the bone. The weapon is not illegal itself and can be used to provide a smokescreen on the battlefield or as an incendiary weapon against a military target. However, its use is regulated even by customary international law."

The munitions used were smoke generating, not incendiary weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 02:41 PM

Jim, Syria commits atrocities every day, so why do you only and always attack Israel, which has committed none?

If an enemy repeatedly attempts to commit atrocities on a civilian population, their government has not just the legal right, but a duty to strike back at them.
Israel acted within the law to attack Hamas in Gaza.
Hamas, uncaring war criminals that they are, chose to make civilian areas a battlefield. Not Israel.

The use of WP smoke on the battlefield is perfectly legal, but even so I considered it reckless and deplorable in that instance (Gaza 2008).
Israel seems to agree and has not used it in subsequent operations, so lets move on to actual war crimes actually happening now.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:22 PM

Which has committed none?
They have and you've seen the results you denying prock
I attacked Syria when you were defending sewlling ammunition and equipment to the bastards, so don't try that one.
You are defending a nuclear facilitated power who claim to be acting on a belief that they have been chosen by God which gives them the right to drive ut and slaughter everyboidy - men, women, old peole - whoever, who gets in their way.
The bulk of their victims are not fighters - they are impoverished, third-world peasants - they are being humiliated by these "chosen people" in exactly the same way the Nazis persecuted the real Jewish People - not the scum who describes Jews who oppose their fascist policies as "Self Hating Jews".
Yu are defending Israeli fascism, - you never hav had the slightest interest in the Jewish People
You may take your @Implanted pervert' philosophyt and shove it up your extremist holes - all of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:31 PM

"The weapon is not illegal itself and can be used to provide a smokescreen on the battlefield or as an incendiary weapon against a military target"
These were used against civilians in schools - not an a ***** battllefield
By your own words you have proved them to be illegally used - don't you even read your own postings?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 07:10 PM

Post of 30 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM is Bullshit from Bruce. Note: no quotes, no rerences,just his interpretation of what was saidseveral years ago.

As usual, true to his name.

And now I'm done with the asshole.

---

Copy/paste thread-bombing (with none of his own words) is appropriate for deletion. -Mod

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 03:35 AM

Jim,
They have (committed atrocities) and you've seen the results you denying prock

Israel has committed no atrocity, while Syria has been committing them every day for five years and continues today.
Why do you always and only criticise Israel.

These were used against civilians in schools - not an a ***** battllefield

It was a battlefield because Hamas, uncaring war criminals that they are, chose to operate from there. Israel acted within International Law.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 03:53 AM

The fact is that Israel acted within the law in Gaza.
A war criminal who chooses to fight from civilian areas must not be allowed to gain from his crime, or other criminals would emulate them.

Israel had a right and a duty to strike back at criminals who repeatedly attempted to commit atrocities against Israeli civilians, wherever they chose to commit their war crimes.

Israel acted within International Law, and is guilty of no atrocities.
Syria commits them every day, so why do you always and only attack Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 04:59 AM

"The fact is that Israel acted within the law in Gaza."
The Israelis have not faced the law on their behavior in Gaza - the Americans have made sure of that.
There have been constant calls for the Israelis to face the International Criminal Court for its war crimes in Gaza and they have been blocked by American vetoes.
AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR WAR CRIMES
SUPPORT FOR WAR CRIMES
Israel has gone to the extent of calling for the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT to be closed so that it does not have to answer for its crimes.
The facts you have been given speak for themselves.
The Israelis have not "struck back at criminals" - they have massacred civilians who have committed no crimes - men, women and children- go count the civilian dead down he years.
"Syria commits them every day, so why do you always and only attack Israel?"
I made my position clear on Syria while you and your thuggish mate were defending selling arms and equipment to Assad - you are now desperately lying to save face - again.
To save you further trouble - we get your message loud and clear:
It is ok to use chemical weapons on civilians as long as it is the Israelis who are doing so or if they are constructed of material sold to the Assad regime by Britain - you have defended both vigourously.
It was well worth a re-visit to this thread to have you reiterate your caseas clear as you have.
Many thanks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 05:56 AM

Jimmy-boyo,

THIS is what genocide looks like:

"In exclusive interviews, photos and research, The Associated Press has documented and mapped 72 of the mass graves, the most comprehensive survey so far, with many more expected to be uncovered as the Islamic State group's territory shrinks. In Syria, AP has obtained locations for 17 mass graves, including one with the bodies of hundreds of members of a single tribe all but exterminated when IS extremists took over their region. For at least 16 of the Iraqi graves, most in territory too dangerous to excavate, officials do not even guess the number of dead. In others, the estimates are based on memories of traumatized survivors, Islamic State propaganda and what can be gleaned from a cursory look at the earth.

Still, even the known numbers of victims buried are staggering — from 5,200 to more than 15,000.

Sinjar mountain is dotted with mass graves, some in territory clawed back from IS after the group's onslaught against the Yazidi minority in August 2014; others in the deadly no man's land that has yet to be secured."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/buried-thousands-72-mass-graves-ap-finds-061041339.html

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 06:17 AM

"Jimmy-boyo,"
Bruce the Goose-stepper
BRUCE the GOOSE
What's your point? - no-one here supports the Islamic State.
Nor do we differentiated between mass murder by them and by Israel
That's the difference between you and us.
Israel facilitated and oversaw the rape, mutilation and mass-murder of 3,500 unarmed civilians - elderly and young, children and women (many of them pregnant and were raped, disemboweled and had their unborn children torn out of them) at Sabra-Shatila over a period of three days - and helped to bury the bodies under a Sports S
tadium so the exact number could never be known - witnessed and testified by Jewish witnesses - that has to be some sort of record.
That's what barbarism looks like.
Albert Einstein and many of his academic colleagues warned against the possible rise of Zionist fascism way back in the 1940s
Had they been around today they'd have been branded "Self-Hating Jews" by the Israeli regime.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 08:49 AM

"On 14 May 1948"
DER YASSIN MASSACRE April 9th 1948
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 09:29 AM

And your point is......?
Britain pushed through a deal which gave huge tracts of Arab lands to the incoming Jews - there was opposition to that deal - why wouldn't there be?
Even David Ben Gurion admitted that they had stolen Palestinian land and that he was an Arab he would not accept that position.
"I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out."
The policy of expansionism and settlements has reduced the original alloted lands to little more than a Palestinian ghetto - and that EXPANSIONISM is ongoing.
The future for the Palestinian People verges on being ETHNICALLY CLEANSED
The U.S. has prevented any attempt to bring Israel to the International Court for its war crimes - Israel has attempted to get the Court closed down (leaving nowhere to try genuine terrorists like Isis when they are finally defeated)
The Israeli regime has placed its own interests above those of the dangers the world faces from international terrorism.
It is to be admired that a small, impoverished State like Palestine is prepared to take on an aggressive nuclear power such as Israel in order to protect itself
Would that the rest of the world had as much bottle
BLOCKADE
Any boycot of Israeli goods deserves all the support it can get.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 10:15 AM

"I made my position clear on Syria while you and your thuggish mate were defending selling arms and equipment to Assad"

Only trouble with that statement Carroll is that over the course of 4 years you have still not been able to provide any proof whatsoever that any arms or equipment has been sold by the UK to Assad, and at no time at all have I ever defended the selling or arms to Assad by anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 10:28 AM

"Only trouble with that statement Carroll i"
Provide - denied by you - all of it
Your denials are worth FA without evidence
You are both serial deniers without evidence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 10:52 AM

Please deny this Teritwerp
I love relating the story of all your different, contrary excuses you gave for the ammunition sale and how it tied up (not) with your mate's "only a few sniper rifles" and "even democracies have a right to establish public order" version
Gorgeous unsynchronized swimming by both of you an a list of half-a-dozen hastily made-up contradictory excuses for supplying dictators with weapons at a time he was murdering his own people.
You could have scripted it and sold it to a sit-com producer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 12:05 PM

Now then Jim - let's take the ammunition you said was sold to Assad's regime by the UK and used to kill people in Homs in 2012.

Your version is based on part of a newspaper article in the Daily Mail, and that was basically that. You failed to comment on the fact stated in the article you linked to that the British Government had sold nothing, what they had done was issue a private arms dealer an export licence for NATO 7.62x51mm small arms ammunition in 2009. Further digging identified the value of this licence at £30,000.

Now how do you go on about proving that an export licence wasn't used?

Some indicators would be that:

1: The Daily Mail article would have mentioned that £30,000 worth of 7.62mm ammo had been delivered - It didn't

2: The ammunition itself would be of no use whatsoever to the Syrian Police or Armed Forces who use Russian weapons that use 7.62x39mm ammunition, standard NATO 7.62x51mm Ammunition would be 12mm too long so it could not be fired.

3: Even in the unlikely event that this unusable ammunition was delivered, that delivery would have been in 2009, £30,000 buys in military terms a minute quantity of ammunition that certainly would not have still been around in 2012 to kill people in Homs (The only way the Syrian Armed Forces or police could have killed people with this ammunition would be if they dropped the boxes of it on people's heads)

Taking all of that into account, logically I would say that the ammo was never delivered. A newspaper article talking about an export licence being granted does not equate to proof that anything was delivered.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 01:01 PM

" let's take the ammunition you said was sold to Assad's regime"
Let's not, eh? - we really have been here
I said that ammuntion was sold to Assad and was licenced by the British Govenment
Keith immediately responded "all you could come up with was a few sniper rifles" - at a time Assad's snipers were taking out anything that moved on the streets of Homs.
You immediately denied any shipment had been BEEN ORDERED.
Having been given proof that it had in the form of a government report, you went on to "well, it may have been ordered, but it was never licenced".
You followed this with, "well, it was licenced, but the licence was withdrawn" - closely fOllowed by "the order was never sent".
Then we moved on to "it was for sporting guns"
Then we had "the order was not large enough to be of any use to the Syrian Army" - and - "it was sent far too early to be used by the snipers on the streets of Homs".
Then - "the order" (which you had no idea of the details of) "was for ammunition that was the "wrong size for the weapons used by the Syrian Army"
None of these contradictory claims were ever linked to anything resembling proof, of course - how could they have been?
AT NO TIME WAS THE TYPE OF AMMUNITION EVER SPECIFIED - YOU HAD NO IDEA WHAT IT WAS THAT HAD BEEN SENT - NEITHER HAD I - AS IS CUSTOMARY WITH YOU, YOU MAKE UP YOUR "FACTS" AND PRESENT THEM AS IF THEY ARE GOSPEL" - AND YOU STILL DON'T LINK ANY OF YOUR CLAIMS TO ACTUAL INFORMATION.
Your mate, in the meantime, continued to justify the sending of riot control equipment, tear gas, armoured cars and water cannon... et al. and suggesting that dealing with a dictator like Assad was fine as long as it was restricted to riot control equipment (presumably to enable Assad to bundle the Arab Spring protesters into his prisons and torture chambers and eventually "disappear" them!
Since then, you arguments have wobbled from - "the order was never made" or "never licenced" to your "wrong size" makie-up.
I will say, you give a wide selection of arguments to choose from - pity they don't relate to one another or to any facts we have about the sale.
Many thanks for the opportunity to run through all this again - you really are worth you weight in entertainment value.
Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis were amateurs compared to your's and Keith's idiotic straight man and idiot patsy act.
You really do need to decide which of you is which though - it's a bit confusing when you take it in turns!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 01:06 PM

NOW ISN'T THIS INTERESTING?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 01:12 PM

CONFIRMATION of SALE + NERVE GAS to SYRIA
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 01:50 PM

"AT NO TIME WAS THE TYPE OF AMMUNITION EVER SPECIFIED"

Oh yes it was, NATO 7.62mm, so was the limiting value of the licence £30,000.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 02:29 PM

"From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 07:10 PM

Post of 30 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM is Bullshit from Bruce. Note: no quotes, no rerences,just his interpretation of what was saidseveral years ago."


The Powers that Be have removed my posts of this information.
exact quotes, threads, and date/times.
As well as my comments about it.

Seem there is no interest in the truth by the Liberal Establishment here.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 02:57 PM

"Oh yes it was, NATO 7.62mm, so was the limiting value of the licence £30,000."
Whee - you have at no time linked to it and I never gave it - is one of yr 'makie-ups'
You have never shown that the ammunition you claim is used by the snipers is as you said - you don't do that sort of thing.
Nor have you ever shown that they only use one type of weapon.
Can we now assume that sales of ammunition were made - also sales of nerve gas?
Then maybe we can work our way through all your different excuses - then paerhaps we can start of Keith's all over again.
Plenty of days - as they say over here!!
"Seem there is no interest in the truth by the Liberal Establishment here."
Perhaps people don't like cowardly trolls
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:25 PM

The Powers that Be have removed my posts of this information.
exact quotes, threads, and date/times. As well as my comments about it.

Is that like "The dog ate my homework", BS-Bruce?

Or are you two years old like Bubo?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:49 PM

Jim,
The Israelis have not faced the law on their behavior in Gaza - the Americans have made sure of that.

I have explained the law to you.
If some maniacal, racist murderers keep attempting to commit atrocities on your people you can and should strike back at them even if they compound their crimes by hiding among their own civilians.
Israel obeyed all the provisos for such strikes.

NOW ISN'T THIS INTERESTING? (Link)

""We sell our rifles to more than sixty markets but we've never sold to Syria, and we haven't sold any rifles directly to Russia for at least 15 years."
A spokesman for BIS said: "The UK has not granted export licences for sniper rifles to Syria since 1999 and was instrumental in bringing about EU sanctions against Russia in July last year. Existing licences that were not consistent with the sanctions were revoked and no new licences for sniper rifles have been granted.""

CONFIRMATION of SALE + NERVE GAS to SYRIA

Not true Jim.
Your link only refers to "components" of nerve gas which happen also to be components for toothpaste.
As Teribus has told you the quantities were commensurate with toothpaste not nerve gas.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 03:56 AM

Jim Carroll - 31 Aug 16 - 02:57 PM

you have at no time linked to it and I never gave it - is one of yr 'makie-ups'

You have never shown that the ammunition you claim is used by the snipers is as you said - you don't do that sort of thing.

Nor have you ever shown that they only use one type of weapon.

Can we now assume that sales of ammunition were made - also sales of nerve gas?

1 - Links: At no time have I ever needed to Carroll, the description of the ammunition and the limiting value of the licence were given in links that you yourself provided plus links provided by others. Your trouble is that you do not read the links you provide or you do not understand what those links say. You are the only person on this forum to blatantly "Make-Up-Shit" - you've been caught out doing so on numerous occasions.

2 - Ammunition Types: I most certainly have provided links that clearly show the 12mm difference between Russian and NATO 7.62mm rounds.

3 - Syrian Armed Forces Military Equipment: I have also provided links to show what weaponry the Syrian Armed Forces use.

4: - Sale of Ammunition: No we cannot assume those sales went through, you stated that they had so it is up to you to prove it - you've had four years and have been unable to come up with anything, apart from a report in a newspaper that an export licence was granted. Taking other factors of a more practical nature into account it would be more probable to assume that no sale was ever completed - I mean really who on earth would purchase ammunition that they could not possibly use?

5 - Sales of Nerve Gas: There have been no sales of nerve gas, the link you provided merely stated that components that could be used were exported to Syria in a six year period between 2004 and 2010. BIS investigated the exports comparing the quantities of sodium fluoride exported to the amounts of toothpaste manufactured and found that they matched, thereby making it highly unlikely that any of the sodium fluoride had been diverted for use in any chemical weapons programme.

Jim Carroll - 31 Aug 16 - 01:06 PM

Doesn't surprise me at all - the AI rifle is the best in the world, but any such rifle in Syria today most likely were brought into the country by the Russians who have been shipping weapons and ammunition to Assad for years {Reportedly two Freighter loads per month}. Still doesn't help you with the ammunition you were on about though Jom the Accuracy International AW range fires 0.338 Lapua Magnum round NOT Standard NATO 7.62x51mm

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 04:53 AM

"At no time have I ever needed to Carroll"
To be believed you have - you are an inveterate liar
You give more "facts" that you refuse to provide proof for
Keith gives a denial
What are you people on?
Your own lies expose you for what you are.
Made up shit
"Your link only refers to "components" of nerve gas which happen also to be components for toothpaste."
See what I mean
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 05:10 AM

Sorry, got that wrong
Should read Made up UNCORROBORATED shit
"At no time have I ever needed to Carroll, "
Do you not know how meglomanic that statement is.
At no time have you ore anybody produced the information you claim, and nevt to the shambolic list of arguments you have put up you are as believeble as Alice in Wonderland
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:06 AM

,i>"Your link only refers to "components" of nerve gas which happen also to be components for toothpaste."
See what I mean

No.
It is just a statement of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:19 AM

"It is just a statement of fact."
It is also a statement of fact that the shit that was sold is also usable in the manufacture of chemical weapons
Equally, it is a statement of fact that the sale was internationally condemned at the time Assad was exposed as having used chemical weapons
You don't give monsters the wherewithal to make weapons, any more than you give children knives to play with because they are designed for cuting up food.
Your repeating the claim of the arms people that they never sold the material puts you where to are - State apologist nodding dogs - what the **** else are they going to say?
I ask again - what are you people on?
I don't think I've ever been happier to see an old argument reopened, as I am this one.
What a pair of tossers you two are.
Have a good day now - I certainly am.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 07:12 AM

It is also a statement of fact that the shit that was sold is also usable in the manufacture of chemical weapons

Yes, and they put it in our drinking water here too.

You stated,
"CONFIRMATION of SALE + NERVE GAS to SYRIA "

That was a lie Jim.
More of your made up shit.

We supplied a harmless substance to a toothpaste factory!
Syria is armed by your old comrades Russia, China and Iran. Not Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 07:51 AM

"you are an inveterate liar" - Jim Carroll

Simple then Carroll give us an example of one of those lies?

You have been asked to often enough and to date have always failed to come up with so much as a single example - this time will be no different.

"It is also a statement of fact that the shit that was sold is also usable in the manufacture of chemical weapons"

Sorry Jim but what you shouted to the world in multi-colour was that Nerve Gas had been sold - you were even daft enough to ask me to agree with you that nerve gas had been sold to Syria by the UK.

Now the following was not the opinion of Keith A it was lifted directly from the link that you provided:

"nerve gas components" Does not equate to Nerve Gas - unless of course you have proof which you don't so your, "UK has sold nerve gas to Syria", is an example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit".

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:22 AM

"Simple then Carroll give us an example of one of those lies?"
Give us an example of somebody linking to Syrian ammunition - I have never done so, nor has anybody else - you claimed we had
I linked only to the reports of the sales being made
Your series of contradictory and unconnected excuses, made up as the argument progressed and presented as "facts" are lies - they were not facts - they were made up by you.
As I said - you are a liar.
I link to everything I claim - you refuse to do so, arrogantly expecting your word
Nerve gas components sold to Syria equate with Syria's ability to manufacturing nerve gas - you argument is simply the use of semantics.
Syria was sold material capable of producing nerve gas - Assad used nerve gas on hos own people - the two facts are inseparable.
I linked to the statements to show there was no prevarication
,YOU STILL REFUSE TO LINK TO ANYTHING YOU CLAIM
Game over - unless uyou want to tell us about the "democratic" firsdt half of the 19th century, or Kitchener, themagnificent leader, ot "brainwashed Ireland".... but I'm quite sure you don't
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 12:01 PM

Jim Carroll - 01 Sep 16 - 08:22 AM

"Simple then Carroll give us an example of one of those lies?"
Give us an example of...."

There you go folks - typical Carroll evasion Happens every time.

He makes a baseless allegation and then runs for cover behind a screen of bluster and evasion when asked to substantiate his claim.

You said I was an inveterate liar Carroll - your contention - prove it!

"Your series of contradictory and unconnected excuses, made up as the argument progressed and presented as "facts" are lies - they were not facts - they were made up by you.
As I said - you are a liar."

Judge for yourselves folks:

I stated that standard NATO 7.62x51mm ammunition would of no use whatsoever for any weapon made to fire Russian/Soviet 7.62x39mm rounds.

Link 1
NATO 7.62mm Round

Link 2
Russian 7.62mm Round

Link 3
0.308" standing beside Russian 7.62x39mm Round

The 0.308" round is identical to Standard NATO 7.62x51mm. Simply put a weapon designed and made to chamber and fire a round that is 56mm long cannot chamber or fire a round that is 71.1mm in length. Still say that I am making this up Carroll?

Link 4
Syrian Army Equipment

"I link to everything I claim"

No Jim you don't, you only think that you do - current example was on the thread where you stated that Sir Richard Branson was a "Tax Dodger", so you provided a link "Straight from the horse's mouth" or words to that effect - but it did not state that Sir Richard Branson was a tax dodger did it, and it made no reference at all to any prosecution for tax evasion in the 1970s as you implied in your post. Caught out again Carroll.

"Syria was sold material capable of producing nerve gas - Assad used nerve gas on hos own people - the two facts are inseparable."

Try this then Jim:

Syria was sold material capable of producing toothpaste - The companies who purchased that material manufactured the quantity of toothpaste commensurate with deliveries from the UK over six years (Checked by BIS) - Syrians brush their teeth - those three facts are inseparable.