BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria

Subject: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: skarpi
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 10:12 PM

I wonder if CIA had anything to do with shooting up this SARIN missile ...in SYRIA ...they are the only one who knows the time and where it was lunched ...I wonder ...just to get
OK for a war ...hmmmmm


just thinking up loud ,

I hope Obama won´t set of the trigger ,if the congress say no ..
he have the power to do so ....
Please do not start WW3.
this world has enough problems already .

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 10:31 PM

".they are the only one who knows the time and where it was lunched ..:

No... they merely have satellites that can SEE where missles were launched. Do not even think such horrible thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 11:43 PM

there must be a lot of special forces on the ground though. wonder they dont have better intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:08 AM

Whoever did it, I very much doubt it was Assad's forces. They don't need to. They wouldn't want to, because it doesn't help them in any way, but hurts them. They are already winning their war anyway. For them to have done so is about as unlikely as for Mr Obama to cross the floor and join the Republican Party or sign up for the KKK.

As for who did it? That's easy. He who gets what he wants as a result of doing it did it! And that could be any one of: The USA, the UK, France, Turkey, Israel, and the various foreign-backed "rebels" and jihadists that the American/UK/Israeli axis has been supporting and supplying for 2 years now for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Syria. Any one of them might have done it...with possible collusion and assistance from one or two more of them.

It's another utterly phony "false flag" propaganda exercise to provide the USA and the UK with another spurious reason to go to war. When you've already caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians across the Middle East (if not millions), to pretend moral outrage over the deaths of a few hundred more is the height of hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 02:04 AM

Love it! Thinking outside the box....which may be more accurate that thinking inside the pre-fab box, neatly and so carefully planned out for you.
I can't say that I have any 'info' to back up Little Hawk's theory of possibilities, other than to say, 'It wouldn't surprise me'...nor, should it surprise any of you! Something is VERY UGLY over there, and I find it absolutely stunning, that the main consideration being bantered about in the media, is that Obama's main concern is that he might 'embarrass' himself, because of his 'red line' rhetoric, makes him look like the unthinking blowhard, that might give his devotees the correct impression of him!..but for the string pulling puppet masters, they CAN afford it....because the next stage is already 'in the works'...and if we all focus in on Obama, we might miss the 'play'.

Just a thought......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 05:47 AM

The ladies did it, ladies who launch..

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: skarpi
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:28 AM

well , my mistake ...misspell the word ...:) ..hahaha ..

thats me .

all the best

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 07:17 AM

IMO, that theory is mostly "out to lunch"- but, I suspect some middle east conspiracy folks would like to spread it around.

I suspect there are are a multitude of interests inside and outside the country with their own agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 08:27 AM

In response to Bill D.'s quote "Do not even think such horrible thoughts" in regards to the title of this thread, below are just some of the atrocities the CIA has been responsible for in the past.

1959
Haiti — The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

1973
Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America's first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

1975
Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger's assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

1980
El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

A quote from Bill Clinton in a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: "By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage."

I certainly do not know if the CIA did launch that Satin missile, but looking through the history of the CIA's past would I be surprised if they did? I have come to realize in my old age that the evil deeds of humans upon other humans does not change. Many never learn, and many never really care.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 08:33 AM

You draw a nice conclusion No 6.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 08:37 AM

No doubt the CIA has been involved in bad deeds in the past, as othes have.

But, does that provide evidence that the CIA was responsible here. It suI suspect that would not represent good logical thinking based on that alonem

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:13 AM

Ed T .... I never did declared that it did provide evidence ... I stated "but looking through the history of the CIA's past would I be surprised if they did? ".

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 09:40 AM

# 6 And I did not finger you as saying that either - I just put the suggestion made in the OP, added to by other posts, into logical perspective. When a suggestion is made, it seems prudent to subject it such thinking to avoid some folks using it to form a conclusion, (which seemed to have occured in one follow-up post).

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: skarpi
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:01 AM

guest Ed T , I did not say they did , but I asked and wondered
about if is so ? ...

just some thing wrong about this .

the Russian should also know if the Syria Government did this ,
they have their people there as well .
and no one wants to kill children I think .

all the best Skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:04 AM

I am sure the Russians do know, but would they inform on their friend.
He is such a good customer.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:09 AM

Is it unreasonable to also suspect that there are interests who may wish to lure the USA into a unpopular exploit to further alienate countries and groups against them?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:14 AM

Congrates, Skarpi... You have beaten songwronger to this conspiracy theory... Well done...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:19 AM

number 6, that was really informative. Thanks a lot. I think it's possible too.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:20 AM

Is it unreasonable to also suspect that there are interests who may wish to lure the USA into a unpopular exploit to further alienate countries and groups against them?

Not unreasonable, but certainly superfluous. The U.S. is doing a fine job of this on its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:17 AM

Considering China's *nd Russian's historic records on human rights and politics, I would hardly excuse them as "innocents" in this affair-as they clearly have recently added fuel to the fire in this country and region. History shows their "steadfastness" in backing their faviourites and helping the USA to make stupid and counter-productive moves.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:26 AM

I'm sorry, Skarpi, but there are many, many people who don't mind if children are killed...and always have been.

IF someone other than Assad did that, I'd suspect the Mossad or Iran, trying to draw the West into military action. Iran would be more likely -- Israel does NOT need more trouble on its borders.

But...suppose Iran was working with their friend North Korea. With the attention and wrath of the world focused on the US, NK invades South Korea....

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:41 AM

"...below are just some of the atrocities the CIA has been responsible for in the past."

number 6-- Even IF the CIA promoted some stuff that they then lost control of (and the El Salvador & Angola stuff are good examples), I would not assume that its guidance & makeup is the same today as it was 35-50 years ago!
I could type for an hour explaining the logical flaws and fallacies in that type of speculation, but those who prefer to attribute almost ANY set of problems and tragedies to conspiracies by "them"...CIA, Bilderburgers, etc., will find some hypothesis to satisfy their need to feed paranoia. If Syrian 'whistleblowers' were to sneak out and admit that govt. forces gassed all those people, some would suspect the whistleblowers were paid BY the CIA. Once you get a good conspiracy scenario going, it takes only a little rewriting of the script to account for all new information... (good info or just other conspiracy theorists' invented info!)

I simply do not see any sane reason to speculate that the CIA, even **if** they wanted an excuse to mess about with the situation, would choose Sarin gas on civilians in hopes of spuring the USA or the UN to....do what? Start a war that would engulf most of the MIddle East?

Ever hear of Occam's Razor? It would be just as easy and more reasonable to just suspect that Assad's regime was seeing how much they could get away with- hoping that little would happen...........but...naaahhhh, much too boring to just blame those who HAD known supplies of gas and were desperate.

I, personally, have no inside information on exactly who did that horrible thing, nor am *I* competent to get the information and analyze all its implications--- but I AM competent to recognize bad arguments and careless speculation!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 11:47 AM

Here's a search page of sites....Don't know IF the CIA had anything to do with it, or if this is a 'cover story' or a 'trial balloon'...but my first hunch (in the other related thread)is looking better as time goes on....
Don't know if this is 'CYA' for the CIA..but I heard it on the radio, last night

I don't know of the reliability of these 'sources'..a couple are suspicious..but I just don't know....but here's the 'new' story.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:27 PM

I've posted some stuff about a years or so ago, that looks more and more related. You may recall my earlier post, in which I put forth, that two countries had to 'go' before the U.S. could get out of the 'agreement' that Kissinger made with the Saudis, back in 1979, under the Carter administration. Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Is it just coincidental that Syria threatened to attack both Israel AND Jordan, if the U.S. took military action against them(Syria)...and now we got this story? If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, I'll post some more on it...but bottom lining it is this: To get out of the 'deal' that Kissinger made with the Saudis, was they buy our Treasury bonds, and we buy their oil, and not drill here. I tend to think, that this has more to do with justifying the U.S. breaking that agreement with the Saudis, and let them being ripped off and just 'holding the bag', as we move forward with the Keystone pipeline...and come off, 'smelling like a rose'. To accomplish it, the whole of the Mideast has to be either 'hostile' to us, or in turmoil. Next part of the story to 'justify' the scam, is the weapons came from Saudi Arabia, as the alleged 19 terrorists, (out of 22)who took part in 911. I remember Bush's speeches about invading Iraq, AND ANY other country where they were, or who were supplied from....somehow, Saudi Arabia just seemed to 'slip through the cracks...repeatedly....but as I posted before,(and you can look it up), the Saudis would be the LAST on the list....and then, oh goody, we get our pipeline!!!
It was a scam from the beginning (a brilliant one, depending on your point of view)..and it's a scam now! That is not to say that the Saudi connection is true or not....but it sure adds 'acceptable momentum'!!!

As 'insane'(?) as ever,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:02 PM

"Whoever did it, I very much doubt it was Assad's forces. They don't need to."

Unassailable logic to be sure. So you are saying that they only did what they needed to do? That they needed to machine gun protesters in the street and kill tens of thousands by dropping bombs and scuds on civilian neighborhoods?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,JotSC
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:55 PM

Of course the CIA lunched Sarin...it tasted great!
Every bad thing that happens in this world has the heavy hand of the CIA on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:29 PM

Jack the Sailor: ""Whoever did it, I very much doubt it was Assad's forces. They don't need to."
Unassailable logic to be sure."

Right.

Besides, why would you use any chemicals or WMD's aren't machine guns and bombs, benevolent enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:36 PM

A yes, the CIA   ..... known in the last 10 years to outsource their torturing ... one country that the CIA rendered suspects to was Syria ... there was cooperation between the U.S. and Assad the ruthless dictator's Syria.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:54 PM

..or even the U.N. Security Council...keeping in mind that all five of them ARE the world's largest traders and suppliers of arms.

biLL, You ARE thinking!!!
..now hopefully those who are lost in political parroting, either side, (as if there is a difference) may catch what you've got, and it goes 'contagious' here in Mudcat-land!

Regards biLL!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 05:01 PM

"why would you use any chemicals or WMD's aren't machine guns and bombs, benevolent enough?"

Yes, but guns don't stir up the emotions of fear and anger like chemicals or WMD ... you need something dramatic to convince the people that they must go to war.

Over a hundred thousand people murdered by conventional [sic] weapons, more than 1 million people are now refugees and that was not enough to compel the western world of the brutality that is going on ... but over 100 people murdered by gas, that presents another picture.

But ... is it too late? You will now have to take on Iran over this. Iran, there had to be a good excuse to take on Iran. Now they have one. After all, there are no more rebels against Assad, The brutality (which parallels anything Assad's troops had previously done) of these now so called rebels is orchestrated by various extremists groups mainly out of Iran.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 05:45 PM

biLL, Right...Iraq and Iran were at war before we 'stepped in' and 'helped' Iraq...then Iran(Iran/Contra)..and not everyone in the world has such and immediate frame of reference, as those in the West...ie. US. I think that they are warring with the objective of RE-uniting, but under what form of 'law'...neither which, of course, takes in the wishes of their own people..(sorta like us, huh?). The bankster/globalist/ industrialists only give a shit about the oil/money/power/control..(money just being a tool).
I think before this is all over, Israel will probably have to take them all on!..even us, IF we aren't taken out of the way first!

So to once again quote Mr. Dylan...."Something is happening, but you don't know what it is...Do you, Mr. Jones?"

When I last 'signed off' on my last post to you, I signed of with 'Regards'.....I take that back.....





Highest Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 05:47 PM

whoops ... "these now so called rebels is orchestrated by various extremists groups mainly out of the Iran." .. I meant out of the Saudi. .... Sunni extremists.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 05:54 PM

Whatever. More violence solves nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 05:57 PM

Oh..and my remarks about the 'benevolence' stuff was meant facetiously.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:11 PM

Suzy Sock Puppet: "Whatever. More violence solves nothing."

You might have missed this, or we cross posted...

GfS: "I think that they are warring with the objective of RE-uniting, but under what form of 'law'...neither which, of course, takes in the wishes of their own people..(sorta like us, huh?).

Much the same way they've got the imaginary 'right wing vs left wing' fighting each other...while getting us to disregard, that we are really just one!!!..it buys them time, and provides a smoke-screen!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:36 PM

♫"Absolutely, Mr. Gallagher?"
"Positively, Mr. Sheen!" ♫

Must be nice to know all the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:58 PM

Naw..just the right questions!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 07:55 PM

Good one GfS !!

regarding the "'benevolence'" ... I thought it was meant to be meant facetious.

and the best regards to you GfS

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 08:09 PM

"well , my mistake ...misspell the word ...:) ..hahaha .."
Don't worry about it Skarpi - still chuckling trying to work out what was on the menu - 'bombe Glacée' maybe!
Jom Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 08:33 PM

Thank you, biLL.
It's rather refreshing that someone takes it right(as in correctly), than to be stupidly accused of being on the edge of the lunatic fringe....even though, I must admit, I do spend time there, now and again, taking pictures, talking to the wildlife, and being amused!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: michaelr
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:26 PM

Whatever!
Fuck all these theories. The fact is and remains that if the US gets involved with miltary action, things cannot but get worse.

And if Obama really does go in, I'll take that as proof of what I've been saying: He's a ringer.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 01:37 AM

He's a ringer?

Never seen him ring a peal in any of our local towers. Mind you, never noticed any black dude change ringing. ..

If that sounds silly and prosaic, it matches my thoughts when I saw the name of this thread. Nobody can work out the Middle East Co dependencies and national interests. It would be better for Western countries to have a dictatorship where the voting majority would welcome a religious state. See Egypt for details. ...

So there is a chance, believe it or not, that the reaction to the germ warfare might be a humanitarian concern. If somebody could tell me what Western leaders would gain by another theocracy in the area, then and only then would I stop laughing at the absurdity of the thrust of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 01:53 AM

It's about drilling our own oil, and the Keystone pipeline.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 04:31 AM

"Did CIA launch the Sarin missile in Syria?"

Nope, so far I can see no advantage to be gained by the USA of getting involved in Syria.

The difficulties involved with the CIA getting hold of a missile, or missiles, and then getting it/them (you would have to have at least one spare as a contingency) into a position surrounded by troops loyal to Bashar Al-Assad and firing it (Was it indeed just one missile or a number of them?) would be enormous and extremely risky - just think of the repercussions if they were caught. The attack would have to be launched from such a location in order to reduce the degree of deniability on the part of the pro-Assad camp.

" I very much doubt it was Assad's forces. They don't need to. They wouldn't want to, because it doesn't help them in any way, but hurts them. They are already winning their war anyway." - Little Hawk

So far there seems to be no decrease in the armed opposition to the Assad regime and all Syria has got to look forward to is a prolonged insurrection or an open civil war. There has been no signs in any let up in the finance and aid being provided to the "rebels". Left as it is this internal conflict could run on for decades, and at one point or other Russia will look for alternative horses to back, so it has to be resolved as far as Assad goes sooner rather than later.

I presume that at the end of this President Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite minority wish to remain in power, with the minimum amount of interference from neighbours within the region - so why would he use chemical weapons? Simple, he would use them, the same way that Saddam Hussein (Another Ba'athist Regime leader) did - to terrorise his people. They give up their armed struggle, and his neighbours are "cowed" into acceptance of the position inside Syria, or face possible Chemical weapons strikes by "international terrorists".

That is why there has to be some form of response.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 05:39 AM

For the information of anyone concerned, a "ringer" in racing terms is a dog or horse which is entered in a race to impersonate an animal of faster or slower speed.
The animal must look identical to the one to be impersonated, even down to the earmarks (political affiliation)

I think that Michael may be suggesting that Mr Obama is perhaps not what he tries to portray himself to be (liberal or democratic)?

All greyhound owners should be aware of the meaning of the word "ringer"......I have encountered several in these pages :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 06:53 AM

I happen to own a greyhound.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 06:55 AM

Teribus, you start talking common sense and you're going to mess up this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 07:09 AM

I'm sure YOU could spot a "ringer" at 100 paces Bill!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 07:51 AM

I too have a greyhound. Never heard the term ringer applied to it. I am aware that entering into sport competitions under false pretences is a criminal offence if it is to unduly influence the outcome.

We got ours from a rescue centre where many of the criminal practices in the murky world of greyhound racing are displayed and potential owners of rescued greyhounds encouraged to support the ending of.

My reference to ringing was that my wife amongst many thousands is a ringer. Bell ringer, change ringer and often, wrongly, campanologist.

What the flying any of this has to do with rescuing greyhounds is beyond me? Other than giving money to support better welfare of racing dogs and lobbying my MP for better regulation, I don't equate CIA with giving a dog a nice retirement.

Could this be the next CIA conspiracy theory? ?? Or is there a bit of crude attempts yet again to ridicule some members of Mudcat.org?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:17 AM

Thanks Ake..It makes sense to me

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:31 AM

Our CoCo is also a rescued greyhound. Five years on the track and one lame front paw she is now living a life she deserves

I do suspect greyhound racing is a money laundering scheme orchestrated by the CIA.

ok ... in all seriousness

I have no answers in what the hell is going on with Syria. I really do not think anyone here on the Madcat has clue. It has evolved into cesspool of inhumanity and human misery. I do know people who have escaped recently from Syria. They themselves do not really know what is all behind it, and they also don't know what the future holds for the country even if the U.S. steps in militarily to try and correct the situation. As they say, when the U.S. starts to drop the bombs they'll be shocked to see their is nothing left to bomb.

Anyway ... as I stated previously and I'll say it again, I don't know if the CIA is behind the Sarin missile attack but I would not be surprised if they where.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 11:28 AM

There are those who will profit from another war. The U.S. has sarin in it's stockpiles of dangerous weaponry.

No one here has any credible evidence of how it was used one way or another. It's all speculation.

No one here knows the maniacal thoughts in the mind of Assad. Remember the pattern, Hussein gassed the Kurds and Bush used that as a pretext to invade Iraq. Does the
Syrian incident ring any bells?

Cui bono? The MIC does.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 11:47 AM

I agree with you biLL, up to a point. I think it rather illogical, that Assad would be the one behind it, though...and there are mixed reports as to who really was. I also agree with those who think Obama REALLY fucked up with his 'red line' blathering. THAT is what put him in a spot to have to 'put up or shut up'. I heard an interview yesterday with John Kerry, where the reporter was really pushing him on why the 'back down'. It was clear to see, that Kerry got pissed off, and looked very 'uncomfortable', to the point that he was raising his voice, at the interviewre's questions, as he was finding it difficult to satisfactorily answer all the questions, as smooth as he would have liked, while being pressed. That being said, I thought Kerry did a pretty good job, all things considered.
I DO believe there is a LOT more than meets the eye, about all of this, and I do NOT rule out some covert activity. It certainly DOES fit a pattern. Most of the victims were not militants, but large amounts of civilians, in fact mostly all civilians, which seriously puts into question as to who was doing the targeting, and WHY? Why would the Assad regime risk bringing in the U.S.??..Makes no sense..unless there is a ruse going on. Why no militants killed, unless the militants did it, to invite support for their side?
One thing for sure, Obama is looking like an idiot, (again) for giving his hot air speech about the 'red lie'..ooops..'red line'. That being said, if it wasn't for his political rhetoric, he wouldn't be looking as bad as he is, nor looking for a scapegoat to get out of this. He is getting NO international support, except for France.
I still hold the line on the Keystone pipeline is their goal, as to replacing the Saudis...and he can't get away with 'ripping them off', without more turmoil in the Mideast, to pull it off. I still think his 'green energy' ruse, was just a matter of greasing his cronies, while appealing to the liberal base, to do it. When gas prices spike, as a result of all this, THEN we'll see more public support soften for him to drill here, 'out of necessity'.

What I have noticed, (as if anyone could help avoid 'noticing'), is that the world situation, is spinning out of control, into absolute chaos...and the mask has been lifted, from our 'ability' to help put the genie back into the bottle. Coupled with that, our military has been downgraded quite a bit, and the American public has been worn down with all these 'wars', at the behest of the international financial leaders.....Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our own inflation, is not being accurately reported, causing concerns and quite a bit of discomfort here at home...All this, is going to cause a call for some 'relief'. That WILL be a selling point for the Keystone pipeline, and increased drilling. How they work their way out of the agreements with the Saudis, will just be public relations maneuvering...and if it takes more killing, gassing, overthrows and disruptions over there, they'll do it!!....and ARE doing it!!! It's only a matter, at that point, is 'containing the chaos'!

On a lighter note, music is also a matter of containing the chaos, but that's another story.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 12:23 PM

GfS .... I never did say Assad did it ... in fact I'm saying I don't know who did it ... what I have said in another thread is that Assad is not epicentre of this madness anymore ... knocking him out will not put a resolution to the situation ... as you said (hits it right on)the genie is out of the bottle ... my friend's family who fled Syria would certainly agree to that statement. BTW, these people fled via Beirut and arrived in Canada with only what they could stuff inot their carry-on baggage.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 01:41 PM

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't alluding to you saying Assad did it.
We're cool.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 02:18 PM

Some alternative thinking:

IMO, Iran's involvement can not be ruled out - through their military wing in Syria, Hezbollah. This group is closely linked with Iran, and is working in league with Assad to regain control of the country.


Why would Iran have an interest?

Firstly, Iran (and Hezbollah) are anti USA and anti Israel. Both the USA and Israel could some day soon attack Iran over the nuclear issue. Getting the USA directly involved in Syria may diffuse a direct attack,could lesson arab and international support for USA and could strengthen Russian and China's (behind the scene) military supply commitment to Iran (and Syria). A bonus may be to find a reason to get Israel involved (increasing arab and anti-Israel religious) support to syria (such as Turkey) and Iran. It may be good timing, considering the poor state of affairs in Lybia, Egypt and Yemen and considering Pakistan and the USA are having issues..


Iran has the means and material to supply Hezballah, who owes them alot. This groups has a record (along with Syria) in meddling in Lebanan's affairs in a deceptive manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 02:41 PM

Hezbollah has said they will NOT attack Israel should the US go ahead with strikes on Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 02:48 PM

""Hezbollah has said they will NOT attack Israel should the US go ahead with strikes on Syria.



Giving their record of truthfulness (or, any of the players in this conflict, for that matter) - Do you really think one should "go to the bank" with that, or any other related political statement on this type of issue? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 05:35 PM

Are any of the US "left" prepared to demonstrate against strikes on Syria? We hear very little of any opposition, tho' polls suggest that over 60% are against military strikes.

Remember the huge demos against the Iraq war, were those just against a Republican administration, or are they beginning to see that foreign policy is the same no matter which party is in power?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:03 PM

Interesting. There seem to be flaky leftists all over the world. And we are graced with more than our share. Lucky us.

As has been noted, there is precisely no upside to the US becoming involved in the Syrian civil war. Perhaps our eminent conspiracy theorists can tell us how Obama can benefit. He will only do it if he feels it is unavoidable.   And the evidence behind the Syrian government's culpability is substantial, in contrast to the absurd theories behind the Iraq invasion.

Nor does the Obama administration have any love for the current Syrian regime.   So there is no reason any thinking person should believe the CIA is involved in this. (Unless of course it's the Culinary Institute of America--I'm sure they have nefarious plans).

Not that this will deter our illustrious Mudcatters.

So have fun, boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 08:09 PM

Yo, Ake...

The left here in the US is already protesting the threat of US involvement... There have been hundreds of demonstrations, all ignored by Big Media...

We'll continue to do what we can do...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 10:24 PM

Ron Davies: As has been noted, there is precisely no upside to the US becoming involved in the Syrian civil war.

Noted by myself (among others) who am one of those you so lovingly call "flaky leftists". I wonder - since you have such contempt for the members of this forum, why exactly do you keep hanging around?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 03:26 AM

Independent today.

Fears Western intervention in Syria may spark a wider regional war were raised on Monday after Hezbollah warned it would retaliate against Israel in the event of an attack.

The Lebanese Shia group said it would respond to a US attack with missile strikes of its own, directed at Israel. The group said it would launch the retaliatory strike from within Syria – where its fighters have been supporting the Syrian army in its fight against rebels for the past year – in order to shield Lebanon from becoming embroiled in the conflict.

"Hezbollah is controlling 8,000km in Homs and will not hesitate to participate in an attack by firing surface-to-surface missiles from Syria," a source from the joint operations between Hezbollah and Syrian forces said in comments published in the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 03:45 AM

News on BBC this morning was suggesting that Mr OBAMA was preparing to strike the Syrian government forces, to "degrade their capabilities". The strikes were to be more forceful than it was first thought; he also indicated aid for the opposition(terrorist) forces.

This is almost an exact copy of the lead up to Iraq, where are you guys at?......With the exception of Bobert, I have heard nothing from you that might indicate that you see Mr Obama as "Mr Bush part 2"

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
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.
There are suggestions coming out that more is on the agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:49 AM

Chemical weaponry is a result of the escalation of war which is pouring gas on a fire.
No military action will deter its usage. Whether the CIA planted the sarin is anyone's guess.
It's such a mess over there that anything is possible. However, the solution is a political and not a military one. I wouldn't be surprised if the rebels have sarin somehow.

Assad is a crazy man in the way that Hitler was by his power grab. The war in Syria could easily spill beyond it's borders.

Israel did a disservice by firing it's test missiles into the Mid-East region claiming a joint military exercise with the U.S. This sabre-rattling will ensure calamity in that region.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 09:58 AM

"Giving their record of truthfulness (or, any of the players in this conflict, for that matter) - Do you really think one should "go to the bank" with that, or any other related political statement on this type of issue? :)"

Ed, I don't trust any of the bastards: Arabs, Jews, Americans, Saudis, Hezbollah, Iran or the fucking Easter Bunny.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 10:05 AM

Any realist knows there is no chance that the US by itself could stop the Syrian regime from doing what it wants to do except by an actual invasion. The US public will not accept an invasion.

What is planned, as I understand, is missile attacks from offshore.   This would show US disapproval of the Syrian regime's conduct.    It is only useful if it encourages Arab states in the area to do more to try to topple Assad.   It is possible that it might have this effect. But this is as far as the US can go alone.    And even this is not likely to be as neat as you might wish.   If innocent civilians are killed, 3 guesses on who gets blamed.


You can call such an attack "involvement" if you wish.   But it is marginal, to say the least.

I think it's important to live in the real world when you are discussing foreign policy--neither in the world of overheated leftist imagination nor in any other utopia where decisions are simple.

I understand some think the US could destroy Assad's air capacity.   Any evidence for this?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 10:12 AM

AND I do not trust Obama. He sure slotted into the old Dubya role so sweetly, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 10:18 AM

The other thing we can and should do is to supply the rebels with weapons.   But do we in fact know if the rebels are unified or not?    And it would be nice, to put it mildly, if we did not supply a group allied with al-Queda with weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 10:23 AM

"so sweetly..."    Drivel.

"overheated leftist imagination..."

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 12:22 PM

All you've talked here is drivel, Mr Davies. Fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 01:21 PM

Akenaton: "Are any of the US "left" prepared to demonstrate against strikes on Syria? We hear very little of any opposition, tho' polls suggest that over 60% are against military strikes."

Well, history shows us, once again, that man never learns from history!!
Our government, which is 'SUPPOSED' to be 'WE THE PEOPLE', disregards, 'WE THE PEOPLE'. The last few administrations, this one especially included, does what it wants, whether 'WE THE PEOPLE' agree or not, or even have a say in it!!..Then they peddle the idea of why we should go along with it, while they lie their asses off, or be considered in the league with some sort of 'hate group'!..as demonstrated with Obamacare, homosexuals marrying, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt, NSA, corruption, whether it be imaginary 'stimulus' packages, funding for cronies, raising taxes or 'fees', as they like to call it, to hide the fact that it is just another tax, debt ceilings, race baiting, Benghazi, 'Fast and Furious, many extravagant vacations at our expense, lack of transparency, keeping secrets agendas private from the people, while snooping on us, accounting of tax expenditures, federalizing local police forces..so on and so forth.....so GOOD LUCK!!

Akenaton: "This is almost an exact copy of the lead up to Iraq, where are you guys at?......With the exception of Bobert, I have heard nothing from you that might indicate that you see Mr Obama as "Mr Bush part 2"

RIGHT!...But Bobert clearly has a double standard, right out of the 'so-called liberal' playbook. It's called 'Puppet's Playbook for Loyal Parrots Other Short(sighted) Stories'.

Keith A of Hertford: "There are suggestions coming out that more is on the agenda."

Oil, and this President seems to favor the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, while hiding behind political rhetoric....just look at his track record, and disregard what he blathers.

Stringsinger: "It's such a mess over there that anything is possible. However, the solution is a political and not a military one. I wouldn't be surprised if the rebels have sarin somehow."

Well, Obama is a political creature, so that would be HIS first concern...as long as how HE looks politically.
..and where did the get them from??? (Question of the hours)..and WHY?

Stringsinger: "Assad is a crazy man in the way that Hitler was by his power grab."

Yeah, well so was Noriega, Saddam, the Shah of Iran, among others....and they were ALL OUR guys!..that we turned on, too, when their usefulness to whatever the agenda d'jour needed 'adjustment'.

Stringsinger: "The war in Syria could easily spill beyond it's borders."

..and Continents as well!
That being said, Strings is on the mark, on this subject.

Michealr: "Noted by myself (among others) who am one of those you so lovingly call "flaky leftists". I wonder - since you have such contempt for the members of this forum, why exactly do you keep hanging around?"

Maybe because he is also a musician...and this IS a musician's forum, isn't it???..unless the "flaky leftists" want to take over that too!..unilaterally....(See my first response above, to Akenaton.
BTW, music has no political affiliation...it is MUSIC!!..However, divisive stupidity does!

Bobert: "The left here in the US is already protesting the threat of US involvement... There have been hundreds of demonstrations,.."

There have???????????????????? You must be confusing that with the Trayvon Martin case!

Michealr: "Fuck all these theories. The fact is and remains that if the US gets involved with miltary action, things cannot but get worse."

Make up your mind...You seem to enjoy arguing both sides of the argument, and then object to Ron Davies calling you a "flaky leftist'!!!! Perhaps this is a clue.

Guest: "Teribus, you start talking common sense and you're going to mess up this thread"

Rest assured, that won't happen!!

From: Ed T
Date: 02 Sep 13 - 02:18 PM

"Some alternative thinking:

IMO, Iran's involvement can not be ruled out - through their military wing in Syria, Hezbollah. This group is closely linked with Iran, and is working in league with Assad to regain control of the country...."
..and he goes on to bringing up Russia being friends with Iran).

Russia is also being victims of Muslim terrorists, Chechnya and others)...besides having a Naval Base in Syria...being as they have no deep water port of their own. You bet Russia is going to fight for Assad! Hawaii wasn't a state, and look what happened when it was attacked!...Though WE might not look at it that way, don't think that THEY won't! What if the Japanese attacked Hawaii, but didn't go for the harbor.......YET!....and that's how they could EASILY see it!!

..........................................

All this, because Obama dug the fact that when Netanyahu came over here, and delivered his powerful speeches, that he looked REAL, and was perceived as meaning business....so Obama used the 'red line' bit, in his own speech, and wanted to look cool using the same line, and being perceived as being as focused and dedicated as Netanyahu. problem is, Netanyahu, knew what he was talking about...and wasn't doing it to win a popularity contest. Now Obama is stuck with it, and dragging us all along with him.......and as my first response to Akenaton noted,.."whether 'WE THE PEOPLE' agree or not, or even have a say in it!!..Then they peddle the idea of why we should go along with it, while they lie their asses off, or be considered in the league with some sort of 'hate group'!.."

Reminiscent of what the 'Right' was starting to flash, during Bush's second term, isn't it????!!!!!???!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 01:39 PM

"If chemical use could be deterred, that would be an upside."
Perhaps stopping the British government selling them might be a good starting point - waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 01:49 PM

But Jim, Great Britain is on the U.N. Security Council...and ALL five of them are the world's leading arms dealers...You wouldn't want GB to look inferior to is peers, now do you???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:21 PM

Britain does not sell anyone chemical weapons.
We do not make them or stock any.
Jim just lies about us.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:26 PM

Well now it's time for a question from 'Sanity Land'.

Ready???

We've all seen that the nations of the world will not line up behind the U.S., in regards to this matter....the question: After the U.S. lied through their teeth about WMDs before the U.N., and invaded Iraq, based on that same lie...and then lies their asses off AGAIN, and repeatedly, in the U.N. about the Benghazi situation, being just a demonstration about a video, why is this not like the fairy tale about the boy that cried 'Wolf!'??

...and one more question: Do you believe them now?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:31 PM

Sorry Gts, I fail to understand your last post. My recollection of WW2 is that Japan directly attacked USA naval vessels in tied up at a Hawaii port.

Hardly a similar situation related to in the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 04:08 PM

Then read it again....you misstated what I said.
fair enough?

GfS

P.S. I also wasn't my 'last post'....slow down, and read what is there.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 04:40 PM

Alternative approach gfs: try being more clear and tight in your posts which (IMO) would make easier reading of your varied personal perspectives. Few has the time to read and reread mudcat posts to "squeeze out" a posters hidden meaning:)

On a reread your Russia Hawaii analogy, IMO, it still makes little sense to me. Do you know that Hawaii was a USA territory after about 1898? Syria is hardly or was ever a Russian territory. I suspect any attack on a Russian naval vessel in a Syrian port would get a prompt and clear response - as happened in WW2.

Smarten up and use more sanity. (BTW, the referenced post was the last post when I was sending (:)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 04:51 PM

Last guest was me, of course ( Cookie reset):)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 05:00 PM

I know that Hawaii was not a state back then(who doesn't?) but we had a naval harbor there(and still do). Syria is not a Russian state, but they have a naval harbor there.
What else don't you understand?...Wait wait, don't tell me. See if, with those 'useful' tools, if you could figure out the analogy all by yourself.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 05:07 PM

Took you enough web searching time to look that one up gfs. At least you know it now. Maybe you can use the same site to figure things out in the future. If not, I am sure some of us can extend a "helping hand" ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 01:19 AM

Took you long enough, with clues to figure it out, then try to cover your ass. Suggestion: Before you get 'critical of somebody's post, because you don't understand it, or remember your history, instead of projecting that back to the original poster, try re-reading it, and comprehending it...and don't say it was the way it was written....maybe it just was interjecting a newer consideration that you weren't anticipating......but then, that's what creativity is all about.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 05:15 PM

"It's another utterly phony "false flag" propaganda exercise"

LH it appears to be that. The advantage that the U.S. has in getting involved on this issue is:
1. Obama can save face for his drawing the red line.
2. The Mid East is a powder keg and Obama wants to control this situation by police
tactics.
3. Obama ostensibly wants to show Assad that he can't use chemical weapons. The underlying fact is that the U.S. has used chemical weapons in the past, maybe not
sarin but others as lethal and only the U.S. is allowed to do that.
4. The U.S. has a pattern of supporting dictators when it suits its interest. FDR called
them "our bastards". The pattern concludes when dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Osama, Hussein or Assad run afoul of reputed U.S. interests then for political, not moral reasons they decide to crack down militarily.
5. The munitions manufacturers are getting rich off of these wars and the taxpayer
is footing the bill. The advantage for them is self evident.
6. The Commander-in-Chief assumes undue power in times of war. Bush and Obama
have capitalized on this. They think it gives them a leg up in historical memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 03:24 AM

Interesting evaluation Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 05:22 AM

"Interesting"?? Totally idiotic more like

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 06:25 AM

Did those here who oppose Obama's proposed intervention, object to him promising to act against the use of chemical weapons at the time?

Did they post here describing it as warmongering?
Stringsinger?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 06:43 AM

""Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 12:22 PM

All you've talked here is drivel, Mr Davies. Fuck off.""

Unidentifiable Guest Trolls don't get to give orders to members, so
go and raffle yourself.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:45 AM

Most Americans oppose any intervention here, and they are becoming quite vocal about it. Not just bleeding heart Liberal types, (such as Bobert;-)).Conservatives as well. We are all tired of war, and there is a strong feeling that we've done much more harm than good in the Middle East. I'm not putting any links up, because it's gotten messy to put blue clickies up lately, but you can Google easily enough...

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:59 AM

The other thing we can and should do is to supply the rebels with weapons.

Hmmm- like we did the mujahideen in Afghanistan, you mean, Ron? That worked out a real treat.

Some folks just don't ever learn......

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 09:23 AM

not true Michael

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.




Who dunnit?

As long as this question goes unabswerede beyond a shadow of a doubt, no action, except for the aove, should be made.

There are plenty of people willing to martyr themselves or others in the middle east, yes including the CIA who are only minor players in Syria.




oTHER QUESTIONS


Who made or sold the gas?

What exactly is the new US weapon system launched into orbit 2 weeks ago on the largest rocket since the Saturn 5?

Why are the Bengazi 4 more important than a quarter million deaths and children gassed in their beds?






The most important thing of all ! :

What Obama has done which is so radical that it seems very wrong, is that he has not lied in a run up to an act of war or a shock and awe demonstration of the US military might.

We are used to going to war over kids being ripped from incubators or non existent WMD's or out right lying over who did 9-11. Aren't the American people worth being lied to again?

Apparently Americans can not handle the truth.




The truth:
we don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 09:33 AM

" like we did the mujahideen in Afghanistan, you mean, Ron? That worked out a real treat."

Well to put things into perspective here Greg F:

The following put money in the kitty:

USA - 40%
KSA - 40%
UAE - 10%
Pakistan - 10%

All the money went to Pakistan, and it was the Pakistani Government, The Pakistani Army and the Pakistani Intelligence Services who bought the weapons and it was they who decided who got what in terms of money and weaponry - Strictly NOT the USA, or any other foreign power, at President Zia of Pakistan's adamant and total insistence.

So no the USA did not arm the Mujahideen they contributed the minor portion towards it.

Note: All the above is a simple matter of record, all well documented

It did work out rather well in the end though as it was the Mujahideen thus armed who booted out first the Soviets (February 1989), then PDPA President Mohammad Najibullah's Communist Government (April 1992) and then formed themselves into the Northern Alliance who fought against the Taliban and kicked them out of power in 2001.

Between July 2002 and October 2003 the Northern Alliance agreed to disarm their militias as the groundwork was done by UNAMA & ISAF to set about forming and training up the ANSF, who are currently responsible for security and law enforcement inside Afghanistan.

Those anti-government forces operating inside Afghanistan today financed and backed by Pakistan's Army and ISI?

1: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar since 1975
2: Mullah Mohammad Omar and his Taliban since 1994
3: Jalaludin Haqqani since 1982

The groups mentioned above "commanded" (from in hiding inside Pakistan) are currently responsible for 80+% of all civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 09:48 AM

I have contacted all of my reps to "Foggy Bottom" and told them in plain English what I think of going into Syria. My friend, fan and rep to the house says she is not inclined to vote for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:58 AM

Risk a regional war, possibly a World War, so Obama doesn't 'lose face'?? You've GOT to be kidding me!!!
Donuel has it right, echoing a previous post from 'moi':...

Donuel: "Apparently Americans can not handle the truth.
The truth:
we don't know."

Too bad nobody trusts our government, because of it, too.....(except diehard devotees......otherwise referred to as idiot parrots!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:06 AM

Yo, Mr. T:

the USA did not arm the Mujahideen

Bullshit. You need to refresh your memory regarding logical fallacies & the old rope-a-dope.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:35 AM

To address Donuel's post

1: Your proposed solution would be more effective were it put in the following terms to the President of Syria and all his international supporters:

The current crisis in Syria is entirely of your making, the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" that has been crossed - we do not care who crossed it - Should there be a repetition, we WILL hold you responsible, these weapons are "yours", you have elected that Syria is not a signatory of the International Chemical Weapons Convention, the only reason they are available for use inside Syria. Any strike will be directed at yourself and the leadership of the ruling Ba'ath party in Syria - this we hope will act as a suitable incentive for you, your ministers and military commanders to ensure that no further chemical weapons are used.

By the way Lt-Cdr John McCain USN had absolutely nothing to do with the flight deck fire aboard the USS Forrestal on the 29th July 1967 - In stating that he had you are in error - you owe the man an apology.

2: As to "Who Dunnit" - don't care - President Bashar Al-Assad has the power and the authority to rid Syria of all Chemical and Biological weapons immediately - let him do so or face the consequences should they be used again.

3: "Who made or sold the gas?"

Probably made inside Syria or Iraq to a Soviet recipe.

4: "What exactly is the new US weapon system launched into orbit 2 weeks ago on the largest rocket since the Saturn 5?"

No US weapons system was launched into low earth orbit 2 weeks ago - an intelligence gathering satellite was.

5: "Why are the Bengazi 4 more important than a quarter million deaths and children gassed in their beds?"

Important to whom? If the quarter million you are referring to are those killed to date in Syria then at least your President and Government are trying to stop the killing - the Russians and the Chinese literally couldn't give a F**K, have not even commented on it and still continue to supply the Syrian regime with the wherewithall to not only continue the killing but accelerate it. The Benghazi 4 are important because they were US Citizens and US Diplomats who were murdered in the execution of their duties, the attack on their Consulate was an act of war - so how would you have responded to such an attack.

6: "...he [Obama] has not lied in a run up to an act of war"

Neither did George W. Bush - your MSM fed you plenty of misrepresentations and untruths about it though.

7: Obama does not have to mount a shock and awe demonstration of the US military might. He didn't have to because GWB did that in 2003 and it served to deter every potential "Rogue State" on the planet (Even got Syria's secret nuclear weapons programme destroyed).

8: "We are used to going to war over kids being ripped from incubators or non existent WMD's" or out right lying over who did 9-11."

In 1991 the UN sanctioned US-led military intervention to expel Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait.

In 2003 US President George W. Bush resumed hostilities with Iraq because Iraq had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the ceasefire it had agreed to at Safwan in March 1991. Iraq was not invaded in order to find WMD, it was invaded to ensure beyond doubt that it possessed none.

As to "who did 9/11? That was Al-Qaeda. The plan was proposed to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1996. It was modified as requested by Osama bin Laden and given the go-ahead from inside Afghanistan in 1998. The plan was delayed in 1999 and finally implemented in September 2001. So what lie was told? Or was this something else MSM made a complete and utter horlicks of reporting?

9: "The truth: we don't know."

Maybe not but we've got a F**kin' good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:39 AM

Teribus you are again splitting hairs when it comes to selling hair trigger guns to Arabs.

More to the issue...

We sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the Iraq Iran war. Saddam used them on Iranian troops. A then already senile Ronald Reagan did not did decry or condemn the use of chemical weapons then. He led by silence, if he even "knew" at the time.

I bet that our chicken hawk conservative congressman will take heart by Reagan's apparent heartlessness of silently consenting the use of sarin against troops. But we are talking about using nerve gas on kids in their beds.

To vote NO to any retribution against Syrian King Assad will stand on the record as a foolish cowardly vote for ever, if incontrovertible proof exists .

Sad ass Bashir al Assad should have an eternity of getting his balls kicked. Maybe the honorable congressman from South Carolina could vote for that.




PS I am amused at how FOX news war advocate experts are reversing themselves in mid sentences and confuse their talking points backwards and forwards.


You know who you are.
As only you could say, Our policies are still between Iraq and a hard place

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:47 AM

EGADS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:56 AM

Mr Obama is not the messiah....he's a VERY naughty boy!!

What's happened to all his disciples?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:58 AM

You still try to answer rhetorical questions and argue against cynical sarcasm.
If nothing else after 12 years of staying in character it makes you sound like a parody of a parody like Martin Gibson.

Open up and be yourself, as long as it is not a paranoid delusional unibomberesque schizophrenic tea party extremist. Characters like that already clutter the Republican party to distractive self destruction.

Of course your contributions are as welcomed as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:00 PM

I have his gourd $%!

Follow the gourd

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:04 PM

btw
if the cia really did lunch on sarin missiles in Syria they must have been starving.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:13 PM

""Took you long enough, with clues to figure it out, then try to cover your ass. Suggestion: Before you get 'critical of somebody's post, because you don't understand it, or remember your history, instead of projecting that back to the original poster, try re-reading it, and comprehending it...and don't say it was the way it was written....maybe it just was interjecting a newer consideration that you weren't anticipating......but then, that's what creativity is all about.""



Clues, that's a good one gfs, LOL.

Illogical historic analogies and logic is what I would clearly call your post. I have no need to reread any of that "muddled logic"on the OP topic (or off it) so far Gfs.   Your post content indicates to me you are treading water on the shallow side of the logic pool.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:24 PM

Ed
Heaven help the poor bastard on the bottom of the deep side of the logic pool.
rescue is often called for.


I stay away from the logic pool altogether especially when discussing things people do and say.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:59 PM

"We sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the Iraq Iran war."

No you didn't CDC do not sell weapons - the US armed forces have no chemical or biological weapons in their inventory - haven't had since well before 1975. Last time the US armed forces deployed troops specifically trained in the use of chemical weapons was during the Korean War.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 01:12 PM

Teribus, If you look closely at your answers, to the ones posed by Donuel, you might see the words 'probably' and 'except for', 'maybe not', and in between a lot of 'qualifying remarks. So, are you saying we should go to war over 'probably's' and 'maybe not's', and 'except for's'???

Arguing over who was/is the bigger liar, between Bush and Obama is just a silly partisan exercise...because the truth is, THEY BOTH ARE!!..and neither one has OUR best interests at heart...Both are working for the World banksters, IMF, etc etc...Not you, not me, not their country. Their allegiances go to the 'countries' without known borders, the multinational financial controllers. How obvious does this have to get before some of you guys wake up from your delusions????

Just today, in Yahoo news, there is an article that says 'Iran is with Syria to the end'.....so, a World War over partisan leader's face saving???..Get real!..You might even wake up to the fact that Bush and Obama are NOT as different as the political rhetoric/media/campaigning crap has alleged, and a lot of you have been duped into believing otherwise!.. LOOK at their DEEDS, and NOT the lying rhetoric, and excuse giving!
Limited military action??..No 'boots' on the ground'??...until they retaliate, and then it escalates accompanied along with the blame
game!!

Yes, the chemical attack was wrong, but we can't even trust who they are saying did it. We hear the phrase 'High confidence'...NOT GOOD ENOUGH!! The peddled their 'High confidence' rap to the U.N. on WMD on Iraq..and guess what?..THEY were RIGHT!! They knew it!!...THEY had the receipts!...WE sold it to them!!...They ended up in Syria...So with that track record, we are led to believe that it was Assad?..The rebels??..The CIA??..The Russians??...or somebody with an agenda to draw us in 'legitimately'???..Who??..like us??..Israel??

Not enough RELIABLE information coming from the known liars, to justify any of this....not even who did it, FOR SURE!

Rather than lobbing missiles, how about an armed embargo???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 01:20 PM

" the US armed forces have no chemical or biological weapons in their inventory"

What credible source of information supports this conclusion? The munitions companies
did sell weapons to Hussein to prohibit Iran from gaining power. The U.S. did back Hussein for this reason.

"2: As to "Who Dunnit" - don't care - President Bashar Al-Assad has the power and the authority to rid Syria of all Chemical and Biological weapons immediately - let him do so or face the consequences should they be used again."

This is a conviction before the evidence is officially in. We don't know because we are not allowed to know. We may find out that the Rebels used chemical weapons but we can't know this, only speculate and operate in a hot-headed manner. We are dealing with propaganda here, not evidence.

"7: Obama does not have to mount a shock and awe demonstration of the US military might. He didn't have to because GWB did that in 2003 and it served to deter every potential "Rogue State" on the planet (Even got Syria's secret nuclear weapons programme destroyed)."

This is specious reasoning. The shock and awe served to mobilize Islamic extremists
in every Mid East country and has not deterred many Mid East countries including Syria,
Bahrain, Egypt and others from condemning the U.S. use of drones and wars. The so-called "rogue states" are deemed to be so by American political pundits. By the way,
with this reasoning, Israel would have to be called a "rogue state" for it's invasions and expansionist policies. GWB in fact might be credited for the rise of Islamic extremism
throughout the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 03:08 PM

Donuel - Good solid points/advice indeed (and, fitting for the situation). I will keep this advice "close to my hat" in the future. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 07:02 PM

the US armed forces have no chemical or biological weapons in their inventory

BWAAA HA HA HAHA HA HA!!

Good one!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 07:17 PM

It seems it's time to clear up some misconceptions here. Sorry I don't have time to wade through the collected wisdom here assembled.

But I thought it's time to set the record straight.   It's certainly true the CIA is behind it. As the OP notes, it was for lunch.   But, as I noted earlier, it was the Culinary Institute of America, and it was the Saccharine missile. Too much sugar is being consumed.   But there are actually better alternatives to saccharine. We hope they will be looking into them soon.

This makes precisely as much sense as the thesis behind this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 01:29 AM

"Arguing over who was/is the bigger liar, between Bush and Obama is just a silly partisan exercise...because the truth is, THEY BOTH ARE!!..and neither one has OUR best interests at heart...Both are working for the World banksters, IMF, etc etc...Not you, not me, not their country. Their allegiances go to the 'countries' without known borders, the multinational financial controllers. How obvious does this have to get before some of you guys wake up from your delusions????"

Oh wow a big bad bogey man - this is the stuff of which bad guys in comics are made - no wonder you and LH get on so well - in short the above is complete and utter crap.

Truth - Politicians out of office and running for election can promise the world. Politicians once they get into office then have to face reality, deal with real problems (Not the ones they imagined) and then put into effect unpopular measures required to address those problems.

The Chemical Attack? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO DID IT - the measures to be taken must ensure that no further attacks occur. There are only chemical weapons inside Syria because the Ba'athist regime of Bashar Al-Assad WANT THEM so hit the regime and force Syria to accede to the 1993 CWC - destroy all the chemical weapons inside Syria and there will be no more chemical attacks.

What is "an armed embargo" when it's at home? I have heard of an arms embargo - only problem with that is that who would enforce it? It would not get past the Russian and Chinese veto at the UN as they are both pouring arms into Syria to support Assad.

My patience with the Middle-East in general ran out some time ago - my view is stay out, sell them anything they want and let them get on with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 01:49 AM

Teribus: "My patience with the Middle-East in general ran out some time ago - my view is stay out, sell them anything they want and let them get on with it."

Interesting.
Oh, an 'armed embargo' is nothing goes in or out...also known as a siege. A siege can be done without firing a shot, and to break it, the place being sieged, must 'negotiate'. Some sieges don't let ANYBODY in or out, either. It's up to the 'siegers' as to how they want to do it to the 'siegees'.... is used 'siegers' and 'siegees' just for simplification...even though that's not their name, technically, but it took me less to type that than to go into details...look it up, if you want clarification....BUT their is another element to consider....a BIG one...but you'll have to stay tuned.....but I'll say one thing, Obama boxed himself in a hell of a mess....the least painful way, would be for him just to lose face...but then history also teaches us, that given the choices man makes to steer his 'destiny' they ALWAYS chose the one with the most pain and destruction.

Oh well....just observing, and catching the angst, translating it into music....sorta a war photojournalist, taking pictures with sound.....

Gfs

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 01:58 AM

ooops, left this one out..


Teribus: "The Chemical Attack? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO DID IT - the measures to be taken must ensure that no further attacks occur.

It only matters, because once you know WHO did it, knowing WHY, is the next question...then you can get to the root of what it's all about. If it was a false illusion, to make it look other than what it was/is, then the injustice of it all, and who those who should really be held accountable, can be held accountable, instead of it being used as a propaganda tool, against the wrong people, who didn't do it.....Like, who do you trust?....fair enough?...there IS a truth somewhere in this pile of shit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 02:02 AM

If US arms manufacturers sold weapons and exported WEAPONS to Saddam Hussein please provide details. You have specifically stated that chemical weapons were sold - please don't give a long list of component parts and materials which through some convoluted process might possibly be used as part of a weapon (Making chemical agents is easy, any facility that makes fertilizer can do it - weaponising those agents thankfully is extremely difficult)

During the Iran/Iraq War both the US and the USSR aided both sides at the same time. The USA gave intelligence information to Iraq but no weapons. The USA did give weapons to Iran via Israel as the military inventory that the Iranians had was practically all US acquired by the Shah.

"The shock and awe served to mobilize Islamic extremists
in every Mid East country"

Really?? Care to take a look at the track record? We have been "at war" with Islamic extremists since 1971.

But as far as the USA goes:
1983 - USMC Barracks Beirut Bombed
1993 - WTC Attack
1996 - ObL's first Fatwa issued & Khobar Towers Attack
1998 - ObL's second Fatwa issued & US East African Embassies attacked
2000 - USS Cole attacked
2001 - WTC & Pentagon attacked

Since that date care to fill in? Nothing anywhere near as numerous or as deadly. Yet according to you the world of extremist Islam was only galvanized into action due to the actions of GWB - grow up.

Now what did the March 2003 invasion of Iraq result in:

1: We can now be sure 100% that there are no WMD in Iraq
2: We learned about Iran's secret uranium enrichment plants
3: Libya renounced its WMD programmes including a secret nuclear weapons programme.
4: The illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network of Pakistani Dr A.Q.Khan was exposed and shut down
5: Syria's secret nuclear weapons programme was discovered and destroyed.

" the US armed forces have no chemical or biological weapons in their inventory"

Now I have asked this question before and it was met with complete and utter silence, but just for your benefit and for Greg F's I will ask it again:

Within our Mudcat fraternity there must be ex-serving members of the US Armed Forces - I invite any of them to contradict the statement I have made above regarding chemical or biological weapons - perhaps any weapons armourers, ordnance techs, missile and gunnery specialists can indeed confirm that they handled US chemical and biological weapons all the time in order to refute what I have stated - the floor is yours

Guess what? I am not holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 03:23 AM

Check with 'Snopes', there is several pages on it.

but I found this..thought it was priceless: "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle..."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 03:41 AM

"Oh, an 'armed embargo' is nothing goes in or out...also known as a siege."

Nope the term armed embargo doesn't exist apart from inside your own fevered imagination. What you are in effect proposing is a total blockade on Syria - Care to tell us how that would be managed?

Taking a look at the map the countries that you would have to get onboard to enforce that would be:

Turkey
Lebanon
Israel
Jordan
Iraq

Land borders are as porous as a sponge as was found during the so-called UN sanctions campaign against Iraq. Who is going to prevent Russian ships sailing to and from Syrian ports?

Put quite simply your blockade wouldn't work it would get no backing.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 12:23 PM

Parliament speech by George Galloway. WOW!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 04:05 PM

Teribus: "Taking a look at the map the countries that you would have to get onboard to enforce that would be:
Turkey
Lebanon
Israel
Jordan
Iraq

Who out of that group do you think the U.S. couldn't 'negotiate' with? We have fair to good relations with all of them......then again, you could 'just do it'...all those little surveillance drones, and satellites...the could do it if they wanted to....if it was used to bring them(if they in fact did it, which we're not sure of....but have 'high confidence')...wait a minute, don't you ought to think, that we should find out who we need to negotiate with, .....FIRST?????

..because as I've been saying since I first jumped on this thread, is something don't smell right(however I worded it quite differently, but the drift was plainly there)......which ties me in to my next response"....

gnu, I found your link most fascinating.
Thanks for putting it up.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 05:36 PM

gnu, Here's one back to ya'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 09:32 PM

Is that the same George Galloway - the antisemitic, Islamist terrorist sympathizing, banned from speaking in Canada buffoon that is being lionized here?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 09:43 PM

For your information.Terribus, documentation that the U.S. and Great Britain supplied chemical weapons and assistance ti Iraq can be found in a report prepared by a committee of the United States Senate in 2002. You can read it here.:The Riegle Report U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports

If you are short on time, or disinclined to leave this page, here are some excerpts from an article about the report, which were published on Sunday, September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland).

"Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene....

The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning....

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986...The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs."

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'."

The full article is here:How Did Iraq Get It's Weapons? We Sold Them

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 10:14 PM

Obama really wants a war. Boy oh boy does he want a war. Good luck, all.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 03:32 AM

As I've been saying all along, "Right wing and left wing are on the same bird!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 04:20 AM

Bobad.....did you even listen to George's speech, which had to be curtailed due to a House of Commons time rule?

He is totally against Islamic fundamentalism, he even described their barbarity in the speech.

Our media treat George in much the same way as the US media treat any alternative voices....with ridicule; but when Mr Galloway rises to speak in parliament, the whole world listens.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 04:32 AM

Hi Ake!!!..I guess you're up on the other side of the pond, there. Thanks for your last post on the 'other' related thread...because sure as God made little green apples, we've taken our fair share of crap from the nincompoopers!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 07:40 AM

Great speech from George Galloway, thanks for the link Gnu

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 07:48 AM

""In 2003 US President George W. Bush resumed hostilities with Iraq because Iraq had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the ceasefire it had agreed to at Safwan in March 1991. Iraq was not invaded in order to find WMD, it was invaded to ensure beyond doubt that it possessed none.""

Rewriting history again Teribus?

Ignoring the fact that Bush had spent three years never mentioning 9/11 without reference to Iraq (guilt by association) to such good effect that, by 2003, about 40% of Ameicans believed Iraq was responsible.

Ignoring also the reason that GeeDubya himself gave, namely the clim (later proved utterly false) that Saddam had WMDs which cold be used at 45 minutes notice. That reason was slavishly picked up and parroted by our own doziest ever PM, regardless of having been told in 2002 that the US were massaging the report to justify invasion.

The report was eventually exposed as a dissertation by a student FFS!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 08:56 AM

"He is totally against Islamic fundamentalism, he even described their barbarity in the speech."

He is totally a liar - he supports and funds the Islamic fundamentalist, terrorist group Hamas.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,musket pissing himself laughing
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 10:23 AM

Two wings on the same bird?

That'll be Goofus and Akenaton then. With their collective wit and wisdom, peasants such as me will never win the argument so 1.0 to Ga Ga Speke.

Invoking Galloway in order to make a point?   I reckon I can beat that one.   Want to hear a quote from Daffy Duck?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 12:08 PM

Well, I'm sure you'll win lots of points, while pissing all over yourself, as noted by your own post!
Let's not call attention away from the real issues on this thread...though I'm sure many of the 'so-called liberals' might be running out of Bushes and Obamas to hide behind!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 12:46 PM

Galloway, an entertaining professional speaker-political activist makes some good points in gnu's link.

But, IM0, if you view his many publically available speeches-interactions, his dark-lunitic side is clear. I rarely quote bigots in ther far right or far left, as doing so may seem to put me in the same legue.

A broad assessment of the linked speech may be "even a broken clock is right twice a day".

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 03:16 PM

So???

What you guys are NOT seeing, is this is NOT a partisan matter. Matter of fact, there's a few on here, who MUST be questioning that...FINALLY!!

The "Who do we have to hate, now" tactic is really quite obsolete, and useless..and has been for quite some time now, 'so snap now, and avoid the rush!'!! Some of you are probably 'just the last to know'...like a married person just finding out that the other has been 'unfaithful' for a long time!!

You know, like in da' blues. Try it in 'A', and you can 'C'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 04:01 PM

Try this conspiracy- clarity logic test Gfs (minus the sanityn that is)

Apples:

Oranges:

Do you perceive them as different, or the same (note, forget the commonly held concept of sanity)


Now (he cautiously adds):

Peaches:

(He test:

Do you see a conspiracy, or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 07:18 PM

Well, so far nobody knows for sure WHO did it, or WHY, and how they got them...whomever 'THEY' is.

Don't you question your 'logic' just when nothing is concrete, and we're supposed to got to war over it???? Don't you think there's just a teensie-weensie something suspicious about that????? You have the two phony presidential party's 'candidates' urging us on, the heads of the Houses urging us on......and most people, and the rest of the World against it....but their even talking about going with or without Congressional approval....and you don't think that's just the slightest bit odd???..and of course ALL the parrots are foaming at the mouth, because THEY KNOW what's going on...until you ask them what it is.....then they just foam as they get madder.....

...and I'M the crazy one???????????????????????????????????????

Put your feet up...relax...think it through....without blaming a soul...don't root for either side...just think about it....have a cup of nerve calming tea......think.......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 07:55 PM

Well said Sanity.....I did not see any lunacy in Mr Galloway's brief speech, quite the reverse, he was lucid and his arguments were fact based.....especially his discourse on the value of the views of Russia and China ....who are we to tell them how to think or when to use their veto when America has used its veto on numerous occasions to halt UN sanctions from being imposed upon Israel.

Mr Galloway opposed the Iraq war when most here rattled the drums,
He was removed from a political party he had served all his life for stating views that are now held by almost every member of this forum; that the war was illegal and destructive, and would leave the country in ruins, with hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead.

Syria is in many ways a carbon copy of Iraq, yet the same people sneer at George Galloway......people who have no guts and no reasonable arguments to put forward.....they live and speak for a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 08:11 PM

Jerry Pournelle, whom Goofballupagus quotes above at 06 Sep 13 - 03:23 AM was a drinking buddy of mine back in the late Fifties, early Sixties. This was before he went to California, started writing (initially spy novels, such as Red Heroin), then science fiction such as A Space Ship for the King. He then joined forces with Larry Niven and the two of them cranked out several best-selling SF novels, such as The Mote in God's Eye and Footfall.

I was the Godfather of his and Roberta's firstborn son.

I liked Jerry, he was a good friend. But—in addition to being a West Point graduate and having a couple of degrees from the University of Washington (physics and related fields), Jerry was a superpatriot and an arch-Conservative. We soon learned not to discuss politics with each other.

But that didn't stop him from making a lot of really far out assertions. The only point upon which he disagreed with Ayn Rand was that she's and atheist and he was a strong, traditional Episcopalian. But their political philosophies were essentially the same.

Goofy claims not to be Conservative. Yet I find it interesting that he quotes a political opinion of Jerry's, zinging in on this anti-Liberal remark.

Tells you a lot about Goofy!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 08:15 PM

You could indeed be the crazy one gfs,regardlerss of your tag, ( but for other reasons as it should not be ruled out (it's the clock thing again, fella)
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 11:09 PM

EdT: "but for other reasons as it should not be ruled out (it's the clock thing again, fella)..."

You mean you're not going to waste any more time in thinking about it??


Firth, You should have hung out with him more, instead of insulating yourself with whacked out politics .

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 11:45 PM

He MUST have been an intelligent thinker, that's why you couldn't hang out together....you're much too obnoxiously pedantic to carry on a rational conversation with! Did you always call him a 'bigot' every time you disagreed??..or were you too oblivious to it??

When you talk music, people listen..when you talk political talking points, you're a waste of time....and other people's talents.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 12:04 AM

So, Goofball, you finally admit to being the arch-Conservative that you kept denying that you are!

Although I didn't argue with Jerry, I just listened to Jerry as he talked politics and kept my mouth shut. From him and from others, I have a very clear idea of the details of Conservative political beliefs.

Jerry was not only a Reagan Republican, but he worked on a number of projects for the Reagan administration.

Among other things, with his knowledge of science and his science fiction writer's imagination, he thought up a number of space-based weapons systems for Reagan.

He designed "Project Thor." Look it up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 12:05 AM

You are staying up far too late gfs. Late thinking effects the reasoning. Time for beddy bye:)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 12:11 AM

Goofup, as I said, I just listened, and Jerry and I didn't argue.

You really should try it sometime. You can learn a lot by keeping your big, fat, flappin' yap shut and listening to what others say.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 01:11 AM

Goofball:

"He MUST have been an intelligent thinker, that's why you couldn't hang out together....you're much too obnoxiously pedantic to carry on a rational conversation with! Did you always call him a 'bigot' every time you disagreed??..or were you too oblivious to it??"

Jerry IS intelligent. Highly intelligent. But intelligence is like a tool. It depends on what one does with it.

And we hung out together a lot. Although he didn't sing, he enjoyed folk songs, especially old ballads. He liked the way I did them and he dug up a lot of good songs for me. He attended "hoots" (informal song fests, usually in someone's living room) regularly.

I wasn't "obnoxious" at all. When he went off on a political dissertation, I just listened to see where he was going with it.

He was born in Louisiana, and he had a Southerner's attitude toward Black people, and let's face it, he was a bit of a bigot. He "tolerated" Blacks, but that was about it. We never discussed it because I knew better than to argue with a hide-bound Southerner with that kind of attitude. And no, I was not "oblivious" to anything.

And we DID hang out together, quite a bit. When I finished teaching my evening guitar classes at the U. of W. YM/YWCA, I headed for the Blue Moon Tavern for a quick brew before going home, and that was about the time Jerry came in. We'd have a couple of brewskis together, then he'd usually drive me home. He had a Jaguar sedan.

And often when I dropped into The Moon, Roberta came with him.

Jerry worked at the Space Center at Boeing (sort of "hush hush" stuff) and Roberta was a school teacher.

We were quite good friends, enough so that they asked me to be the Godfather of their first child. I don't think they would have done that if I had been "obnoxiously pedantic" and called him a "bigot."

Are you unable to read, Goofball, or do you simply not understand plain English? Or do you have a sick compulsion to make up stories that you know are not true about people and spread them around?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 11:38 AM

Firth: "So, Goofball, you finally admit to being the arch-Conservative that you kept denying that you are!"

I did??? These you go again!! What post are you quoting of mine??..Would you put it up...or shut up!
You just never learn a damn thing...you keep making up other things that you 'say' posters say, and then go on some stupid, illiterate rant about it...Put my quote up!


Ed T: "You are staying up far too late gfs. Late thinking effects the reasoning. Time for beddy bye:)"

Is this your tactic, instead of exchanging a salient comment, or rebuttal???..or did you just run out of your depth?? If you got something to comment on, fire away....if not, keep your bedtime stories to yourself....and take your teddy bear with you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 12:47 PM

Come on gfs, you can do better than that. You must have e or many nother "sketchy" conspiracies under your hat to share:)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 01:05 PM

I do???
Who set off the chemicals??


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 01:20 PM

Goofball, at 06 Sep 13 - 03:23 AM, you quote Jerry Pournelle's attack on Liberalism, obviously thinking that what he said is just peachy-keen.

No matter how you slice it, political positions lie on a spectrum between Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal. EVERYBODY lies on that spectrum somewhere, even though, like Little Hawk—and YOU—some people like to think they're "above it all."

NOT!!

By attacking Liberals the way you do, that leaves you ONE position. Conservative.

Suck it up! You're busted

Don Firth

P. S. Some insightful political observer once comment, "The only things you find in the Middle of the Road are a yellow stripe and a dead skunk!"

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 01:46 PM

Firth: "By attacking Liberals the way you do, that leaves you ONE position. Conservative."

Pure nonsense!..I think they're both fucked up and owned....as if I wasn't clear enough about that already, REPEATEDLY!...Now you go 'suck it up'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 02:02 PM

Gfs, Fromm the amount of time you seem to spend here, I suspect you spend most of your waking day - and part of your sleeping time thinking up loosely thought ou "L" conspiracy stuff and posting it on folk music websites.

I guess it is some type of existance-and I will resist the temptation to offer advice on more productive exploits:)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 05:29 PM

Naw...just between studio time...I pop up here between stuff, and post...BTW, I didn't get the "...loosely thought ou "L" conspiracy ..."

You must have spent quite some time working up that one...does anyone besides you, know what it means?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 08:43 PM

Some harrowing video for anyone who may doubt that a chemical weapon attack took place:Syrian Chemical Weapons Use Videos

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 09:30 PM

NY Times article outlining how Assad was able to amass his stockpile of chemical weapons. While the main players appear to be Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, some European countries and the US have also profited from supplying dual use precursor chemicals:

With the World Watching, Syria Amassed Nerve Gas.

Note to Stringsinger, Carroll and the other usual suspects - there is no mention of Israeli complicity but it is the NY Times after all and we all know what that's about, don't we - nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Sep 13 - 09:50 PM

Goofball: ".....they're both [Conservatives and Liberals]fucked up and owned....as if I wasn't clear enough about that already, REPEATEDLY!...Now you go 'suck it up'!"

Oh, you were clear enough.

Clear in that you don't have a clue as to what the hell is going on.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 06:53 AM

Guest Stim - CDC do not sell weapons

GfS - "Who out of that group do you think the U.S. couldn't 'negotiate' with? We have fair to good relations with all of them......then again, you could 'just do it'...all those little surveillance drones, and satellites"

Oh the USA could negotiate with all of them to varying degrees and likelihood of success, but they wouldn't get watertight sanctions even if they negotiated from now until the cows came home - no way of enforcing the sanctions and your surveillance drones (Would end up as PTA's for the various airforces to shoot down) and satellites would only tell you that your blockade wasn't working.

US "Armed Embargo" Officer - "Excuse Mr. (Whoever) in Turkey/Lebanon/Iraq/Jordan there are shed loads of trucks going into and out of Syria."

Mr. (Whoever) in Turkey/Lebanon/Iraq/Jordan - "Really? No Shit? We'll get on it right away" Then promptly goes back to sleep.

Don T - "Rewriting history again Teribus?" Nope but according to your point of view western MSM sure as hell took you in and for that blame horrendously inaccurate reporting combined with your own laziness for not checking what was actually said by the people involved, as opposed to what MSM reported they said.

April 1991 - What Iraq agreed to do - UNSCR 687

Did Iraq comply with UNSCR 687 - Did they F**k

Were Safwan Ceasefire Terms and Conditions complied with? - No

Did that open the door to allow any of the combatant powers to resume hostilities to enforce compliance? - Yes

Who kept telling you that the invasion of Iraq was a single issue deal? - Western MSM

Who kept telling you that the USA and the UK kept switching what single issue was the cause de jour? - Western MSM

Whole rake of reasons all described in detail in UNSCR 687 - which Saddam Hussein COULD NOT comply with - Take a look down towards the bottom of the list - the return of 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted and taken into Iraq in 1990 - Saddam could return them, primarily because by 2003 he had murdered 602 of them.

All the above simply a matter of record all well documented.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 06:56 AM

Correction to last:

"Take a look down towards the bottom of the list - the return of 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted and taken into Iraq in 1990 - Saddam could NOT return them, primarily because by 2003 he had murdered 602 of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 07:00 AM

:) Gfs, its not the first concept you couldn t figure out with a little thought. Come on, connect the dots Must be the fringe position you confessed to be associated with earlier that is holding you back:)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 01:12 PM

Teribus, yes, the countries surrounding Syria, COULD help us facilitate an armed embargo, as you noted....but then at the same time, there is NO conclusive evidence that Assad ordered the chemical weapon attack, which I've pointed out to you before, and others, several times.

Just like in the Zimmerman/Martin case, they are playing on emotions, and frantically want to get something going...but forgetting one 'little detail'....and that is getting your ducks in a row, and honestly finding out who was behind it...AND as the title of this thread, maybe in our rush to 'judgement', we shouldn't overlook ourselves!....and until we know for sure, shouting louder or more often, by the politicians, and their parrots and pundits, doesn't mean that we're any closer to finding out.
First find out, (or admit) who did it...and then discuss what should be done, and how.....don't ya' think???


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 01:23 PM

EdT, Just what are you talking about???

Let me 'bottom line' it for you:

We don't know, or are not saying what we know about who did it, and this administration is NOT trusted at home, by the world community, not even by our own military.
This is NOT conducive for going to war.
If you have a specific question about that, lay it out.
That being said, are you in favor of us taking 'military action', and if so, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 07:38 PM

I don't really care much about arguing with you, Terribus. I just posted the facts, and it doesn't much matter whether you believe them or not. You don't figure in this situation at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 08:12 PM

I already understand that you don't get it gfs. It is evident from some of your many sketchy posts on many topics. But, you do recall stated here that you seem comfortable being part of the "lunatic fringe".

BTW, here and in the other thread (on the same topic) you claim that it is not known who was responsible for the use of the toxic chemicals that seem to have been used in Syria (note that it is also possible they were never used, as some project in the moon landing conspiracy).

But, on this thread your position seems to be that it is not logical that Assad was involved at all - while it may not be logical to you, that does not mean it is lacking in logic to others.

Since when have you been personally privy to information and conditions that may make it quite logical to Assad? It may not seem logical from where you sit, nor with the information you possess (with possible personal bias) - but that does not at all rule out logical thinking on Assad's part. It may be just as logical as positions taken by others involved in the dispute, given their inside information, their biases, their projections of potential future impacts, and their other interests.

Regardless, it seems that the political situation may have now evolved beyond that issue. Possibly, some public and International Brinkmanship was involved that we (on Mudcat:) were not aware of? Who knows for sure.

Hopefully, those involved can put differences aside and get together on a solution without any outside firepower and one that solves the internal differences that causes hardship for many humans (regardless of what side they are on).

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Sep 13 - 09:03 PM

Who kept telling you that the invasion of Iraq was a single issue WMD deal?
you did
Who kept telling you that not supporting the invasion of Iraq was unpatriotic bush bashing and possibly seditious?
you did
Who kept telling you that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil?
you did
Who kept telling you that the invasion of Iraq was necessary, easy and important?
you did teribus.

In fact I always thought your avatar meant terrible and that you might be an invented foil for the un-brainwashed to rage against. If I am wrong and your family has been harmed or killed in the conflict I am sorry, but don't you think You would blame someone other than the main or FOX stream media by now!?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 02:40 AM

No argument Guest Stim - the CDC does not sell weapons. I asked for proof that the USA had sold Saddam Hussein Chemical weapons as many on this forum have repeatedly stated - Fact is the USA didn't.

I also asked the forum at large for any ex-USA armed forces personnel to step forward and tell us all about what chemical and biological weapons the US armed forces have in their inventory, and how often they armed, handled and fired such weapons - as it was supposedly the US that had supplied chemical weapons to Saddam to fire out of his Soviet supplied artillery and mortars - I predicted that there would be no response and I see that that has proven to be the case.

Ah Donuel - the man who likes to tell lies and spread falsehoods about others:

"Who kept telling you that the invasion of Iraq was a single issue WMD deal? - you did"

Not so Donuel - I have always referenced UNSCR 687 & the Safwan ceasefire Agreement.

"Who kept telling you that not supporting the invasion of Iraq was unpatriotic bush bashing and possibly seditious? - you did"

Never said anything of the sort.

"Who kept telling you that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil? - you did"

As far as the USA was concerned it was never about oil - If you want to discuss Greenspan's comment I'd be delighted to - I think I said, at the time when Greenspan said that it was all about oil, that yes it was but not in the way most on this forum thought it was (All those rabbiting on about America "stealing" Iraqi Oil - utter hogwash - how much of it did you get? - Ended up as absolutely None. Now come and tell us all about how the most powerful nation on the planet managed that if it was their original goal)

"Who kept telling you that the invasion of Iraq was necessary, easy and important? - you did teribus."

Necessary - Yes
Important - Yes
Easy? - When on earth did I say it was going to be easy? Or are all of the above just things that you felt like making up - you know something like your little "story" about Lt-Cdr John McCain being responsible for the fire on the USS Forrestal in 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 04:12 AM

Shouldn't the world apply the same standards of accountability to the US as it does to any other country, Teribus? You seem anxious to l
aunch WW3 without producing evidence of Assad's guilt and then you demand "proof" about US chemical sales to Iraq.



"According to the Washington Post, a Senate committee investigating the relationship between the US and Iraq discovered that in the mid-1980s - following the Rumsfeld visit - dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq under licence from the Commerce Department.
They included anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare programme.
The newspaper says: 'The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html#ixzz2eTQxJqdy

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 06:05 AM

America prides itself on being the model for democracy ,but isn't there something very aristocratic and cavalier about the way it is withholding the evidence of this attack from ordinary people ? There's a corresponding deferential peasant mentality from people like Teribus, who don't think they are entitled to see the "evidence" - as if they are not worthy enough. Maybe they should get back to writing all the legal stuff in Latin.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 06:36 AM

Ehmmm No mayomick I asked for proof that the USA sold and provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons - which was what the person I responded to was stating.

CDC sent sample batches of various cultures and agents to both Iraq and Iran they in themselves are not weapons both the US and the UK do research in this area in the interests of defence against chemical or biological weapons attack - IIRC the first of these batch samples travelled to Baghdad as cabin luggage on a commercial flight.

Loads of chemicals and pieces of equipment have dual uses. Remember the post-graduate thesis that JIC "borrowed" large tracts of text from? The subject of that thesis was the elaborate network of dummy fronts and shell companies and organisations that Saddam Hussein set up to purchase and import prohibited items into Iraq. In the other thread about Syria the subject of Sodium Fluoride came up - it has many perfectly peaceful uses - even inside Syria or Iraq - does that mean it cannot be sold?

If there is one thing I am certain about World War Three would not be started by anybody to either save or replace Bashar Al-Assad and to suggest any such thing is totally ludicrous. Putin is at present using the situation in Syria to demonstrate to the world and it's dog how simple it is to run circles round Barack Obama and the USA - he didn't dare try any of that on with GWB, who when all said and done must have at least had full knowledge of, or had even given the Israeli attack the green light to nail Syria's secret nuclear facility (Operation Orchard September 2007).

As I have stated before it doesn't matter who was responsible. The point of the exercise is to apply pressure to the situation in general in order to ensure that they are not used again - and guess what? That is what has been done.

If there is another chemical attack I wonder how many will be prattling on about it being a "Black Op" on the part of the Syrian Army to discredit the rebels.

I reckon the fact that Russia has moved (And it has shifted its position as it could have suggested this right at the start) is that they now know that it definitely was Assad's troops that launched the attack, and they want a handle on things as and when that news along with the supporting evidence breaks.

Alternatives:

1: US targeted strikes - make Assad think that he personally might be a target

2: Put Syria's chemical weapons, which Assad and the Ba'athist regime in Syria are undoubtedly responsible for, under the control of an independent international body.

The first definitely gives the man an incentive, the second if organised and implemented under the direction of Putin's Russia will amount to just so much chat with nothing actually happening and as Ron said Assad will still at the end of the day have his chemical and biological weapons - which is very important to Assad because when the "rebellion" fails Assad will need such weapons and his army to keep his "loyal" citizens and his neighbours in the region in line - in exactly the same manner as Saddam Hussein did.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 06:43 AM

"I asked for proof that the USA sold and provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons "
Evasive semantics - the West provided the wherewithal for Hussein to manufacture chemical weapons - nothing else is relevant
Jim Carroll

Project 922 was the codename for Iraq's third and most successful attempt to produce chemical and biological weapons. Within three years (1978–1981), Project 922 had gone from concept to production for first generation Iraqi chemical weapons (mustard agent). By 1984 Iraq started producing its first nerve agents, Tabun and Sarin. In 1986, a five-year plan was drawn up that ultimately led to biological weapons production. By 1988 Iraq had produced VX. The program reached its zenith in the late 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. From August 1983 to July 1988 Iran was subjected to extensive Iraqi chemical attacks. Between 1981 and 1991, Iraq produced over 3,857 tons of CW agents.[citation needed]
As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kolb helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was French. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil. The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce Department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq's nuclear program. The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[3] Austria also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq's chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 07:45 AM

Yes, as I tried to get across to you before gfs, you truly "don't get it". Unfortunately, it seems it is beyond your capacity to grasp this reality (possibly from the lunatic fringe association). But, that does not seem to ring a bell in your conspiracy-skull that most of your "joining of the unrelated dots" don't make much logical sense - and that others may have different perspectives that are most likely more logical and less politically biased than yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 10:23 AM

The claim was that the big bad USA had sold Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons - That I refuted. As yet that no-one has shown any evidence of the USA having sold Iraq any weapons.

I have claimed that the US armed forces do not have chemical or biological weapons in their inventory of weapons - I invited contradiction of that statement from any ex-US armed forces personnel here on Mudcat - so far nothing (And there won't be) - Sort of begs the question then that if the US doesn't possess chemical or biological weapons how the hell can they sell them to anybody, particularly to an army massively equipped with Soviet and Chinese military hardware.

Now I see Jom "The Impartial" accuses me of "Evasive Semantics" his side of the arguments way of admitting that I am in fact correct and that what was sold to the Iraqis were bits and pieces that might be used for quite a number of purposes, perhaps tom cross the i's and dot the t's Jom can provide through many of his cut'n'pastes the sales details where the purpose of the purchase on the export licence application states.

"x" tons of sodium fuoride to make Sarin to kill Kurds" - signed Saddam Hussein 1988

So no weapons sold merely some of the components - the wherewithall - that is a start.

Now if the big bad west provided this wherewithall who was it do you think provided Saddam & Co, such as ol-Bashar's Dad and those pesky Egyptians, Angolans, Sudanese, etc with the recipe? My guess would be Soviet Russia, as they were busy making and maintaining tons of the stuff at the time.

Now let us look at Jom's latest bit of Wiki Trawling

1: "Project 922 was the codename for Iraq's third and most successful attempt to produce chemical and biological weapons. Within three years (1978–1981), Project 922 had gone from concept to production for first generation Iraqi chemical weapons (mustard agent).

Now let me see Iraq broke off all diplomatic relations with the USA in the Summer of 1967. So Jom could you please tell us what part the USA could possibly have had in Project 922? None as far as I can see

2: By 1984 Iraq started producing its first nerve agents, Tabun and Sarin.

By being the operative word, as any form of relations with iraq were not restored until November 1984. BY which time Iraq had already started producing Tabun and Sarin. OK Jom, what part did the US play in assisting the Iraqi Sarin R&D efforts?

Seems to me like the whole Iraqi chemical and biological agent thing was home grown with technical advice from the USSR & China.

Their VX programme time line?
Developed production capability by 1988
Forced to abandon it in 1991
Restarted it in 1995 while they were supposed to be co-operating with UNSCOM to get rid of all this shit
At no point in this did the Iraqi's ever succeed in effectively weaponising it - according to UNSCOM & UNMOVIC

By the way there were 30 instances of chemical attacks during the course of the Iran/Iraq War.

3: "As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kolb helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant.

Karl Kolb was supplying equipment to Iraq that the Iraqi's said was for a pesticide plant - in the years leading up to 1978 could you explain to us all Jom why the Germans at Karl Kolb should have thought that the Iraqis were lying?

4: Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all.

OK I am really dying to know what these precursors were and what other things can be made from them - and again why should they not have been sold to Iraq in the 1970s?

5: "France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons."

What did the Iraqis tell the French they were for at the time? Care to tell us that Jom?

What does dual use mean? Does it mean that it can be instantly converted into some deadly WMD? Or does this transformation rely on years and years of secretive conniving, double-dealing, slight of hand and duplicitous behaviour on the part of the servants of a rogue regime in every sense of the word to acquire the means to convert said "dual use" items into WMD.

Whole thing complete and utter tosh.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:41 AM

This I posted on the 'other related thread':

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

P.S. ..and to 'unnamed 'Guest', I DO 'get it'....You are the one who is 'not getting it'...or you would have understood EXACTLY what, and why I posted what I did.
Do you think that there would be any reason for the banksters to want, promote, orchestrate, foment, coerce, or in any way facilitate, more Mideast turmoil for their advantage??
Now think it through, FIRST, before you re-act.
Then respond.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 11:49 AM

Teribus, Did you overlook the link in this post?.....on purpose??

From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 04:12 AM

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:06 PM

"bits and pieces that might be used for quite a number of purposes,"

Including the manufacture of chemical weapons - as I said "evasive semantics" - or are you claiming the goods were as "harmless as toothpaste unless you dropped a bag of them on your foot too?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:49 PM

In its "Brief Description of Chemical Weapons" , The ORGANISATION FOR THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS specifically rejects your narrow "general and traditional" interpretation of what constitutes a chemical weapon .
http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon/
"The general and traditional definition of a chemical weapon is a toxic chemical contained in a delivery system, such as a bomb or shell.
The Convention defines chemical weapons much more generally. The term chemical weapon is applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves."

"A common conception of a chemical weapon comprises a toxic chemical contained in a delivery system such as a bomb or artillery shell. While technically correct, a definition based on this conception would only cover a small portion of the range of things the CWC prohibits as "chemical weapons". There are several reasons for the broad CWC definition, which, as described in Fact Sheet 2, includes munitions, precursor chemicals and equipment connected with production and use of chemical weapons."

For one thing, CW components—a toxic chemical and delivery system, for example— may be stored separately, each in and of itself less than a fully developed weapon. In the case of binary munitions, a nonlethal chemical may actually be stored within a munition, only to be mixed with a second chemical inserted into the munition shortly before firing, and the toxic product disseminated upon arrival at the target.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Mayomick
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 12:54 PM

Sorry the last post was from me without cookie

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 01:11 PM

Teribus . The convention referred to is the one signed by the USA upon which it currently bases the charges against the Syrian regime . Had the Russians supplied Assad with sarin gas without the means of delivering it to the Damscus suburb of Ghouta , the US would correctly be able to charge Russsia with supplying a chemical weapon to the Syrian regime.

Here's a blue clicky to the link ,btw

http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon/

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 01:34 PM

Give it a break gfs, you are way over your head in the logic pool - btw, peaches and turnips do not make applesauce. Well,maybe except to self-confessed, illogical lunatics way off in the woods basking in conspiracy sounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:42 PM

Well, that was a vague, nondescript version of a weak accusation, with no specifics!
I was hoping that the wannabe 'so-called liberals' would have evolved above that, by now, being as it doesn't work with me. You wanna get down and dirty??..Talk specifics!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 03:53 PM

""Nope but according to your point of view western MSM sure as hell took you in and for that blame horrendously inaccurate reporting combined with your own laziness for not checking what was actually said by the people involved, as opposed to what MSM reported they said.""

They probably had a hundred credible reasons, but the one that Bush and Blair sold to their respective citizens WAS WMDs, and it was a carefully constructed lie!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 04:09 PM

"You harvest what you plant"

Based on your posted "sketchy conspiracy theories", gfs, I have concluded that you wouldn't understand actual specifics if they bit you in the arse. Suggestion: put a tad of legitimate and verifiable evidence on the varied conspiracy stuff you post (beyond the "World Weekly News" conspiracy type stuff you frequently refer to), and you I would likely take you more seriously in thread discussions. From what I have seen so far, I see not even a glimmer of a reason to consider that avenue and waste my time.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Sep 13 - 04:19 PM

Add to that the fact that I haven't read a newspaper in forty years and get my news from radio or BBC TV News, both of which regularly broadcast live, what people like Bush and Blair are saying, so I do get to hear it direct from the horse's mouth.

Not lazy at all.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 02:24 AM

1: "They probably had a hundred credible reasons, but the one that Bush and Blair sold to their respective citizens WAS WMDs, and it was a carefully constructed lie!!"

The reasons they had were clearly defined there were 32 of of them:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

That states precisely what Iraq under Saddam Hussein agreed to do, and were required to do at the insistence of the international community. Did they do it? No they did not.

Example 1:
"8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;"

Never happened did it?

Example 2:
"9(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;"

Again never happened - in actual fact I believe the Iraqis made something like THIRTY-Odd full, final and definitive declarations over the course of thirteen years

Example 3
"31. Invites the International Committee of the Red Cross to keep the Secretary-General apprised as appropriate of all activities undertaken in connection with facilitating the repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or their remains present in Iraq on or after 2 August 1990;

Another thing that Saddam Hussein failed to do out of 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted only three were ever repatriated Saddam Hussein murdered the 602 others and their bodies are interred in mass graves containing Saddam's victims in Iraq.

The important bit of UNSCR 687:

"33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

The ceasefire established was NOT a ceasefire between the UN and Iraq, but between Iraq and the other combatant powers - If Iraq breaks the ceasefire, which it would be seen to have done if it did not fulfill its obligations under the terms of the ceasefire then hostilities can be resumed to enforce compliance.

2: " the fact that I haven't read a newspaper in forty years and get my news from radio or BBC TV News, both of which regularly broadcast live, what people like Bush and Blair are saying, so I do get to hear it direct from the horse's mouth."

The BBC one of the most biased news services on the planet - that figures. By the way in listening to the BBC either on radio or on TV, you do not get to hear what people are saying, you get to hear the bits of what they are saying as selected by the programme editorial staff.

I will give you an example of BBC reporting and how they shade things.

Early days of the invasion of Iraq the BBC reported that a US cruise missile that had gone "rogue" had hit a Maternity Hospital in Baghdad

- that was reported on BBC World Service at about 5 o'clock in the morning UK time.

- next bulletin their man on the ground was there and clarified the situation somewhat. No Maternity Hospital had been hit, the missile had landed and exploded in an empty square at 03:30hrs local time killing no-one, a near-by maternity clinic with no-one in it had received slight damage (windows broken).

- next three bulletins issued by BBC? - US cruise missile hits Baghdad Maternity Hospital and they immediately replaced their man on the ground in Baghdad (Penalty for not following the Party Line)

Here is another one:

How many people think that the £20 billion spending plans being talked about in the UK are being spent to replace Trident missiles? Judging by comments I read it would appear to be quite a large proportion of the British public - all thanks to way it is reported by MSM in the UK. The £20 billion of course is not being spent on any missiles at all, it is being spent on replacing the submarines that carry the missiles as the Vanguard Class SSBN's are reaching the end of their design life - yet MSM in the UK keep banging on about £20 billion expenditure on replacement for Trident.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 02:57 AM

Unsanitary Guest.
"Well, that was a vague, nondescript version of a weak accusation, with no specifics!"
I suppose we are going to be left waiting to find out what those "bits and pieces that might be used for quite a number of purposes," (doesn't come more nondescript than that), were if they weren't for chemical weapons - they were listed in the link you were given as part of Iran's development of a chemical weapon programme.
You have yet to comment why Assad's behaviour pre the chemical weapon strike, gets him off the hook from intervention - just as we were left awaiting a comment on why Israel's behaviour of continuing building settlements and invading sovereign territory while a peace conference was taking place was not tantamount to deliberately sabotaging that conference - I suppose we'll never know either.
You are mean keeping your vast volumes of knowledge secret - won't you share just a little of it with us - pu-leeeeeze?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:02 AM

Had the Russians supplied Syria with Sarin Gas they would have been in contravention of the CWC as it is clearly stated that it is illegal to manufacture Sarin Gas.

"Except for very limited application for protection programmes, medical research or other permitted purposes, the production of some toxic chemicals with virtually no legitimate peaceful uses, such as sarin (GB), is banned."


1: A common conception of a chemical weapon comprises a toxic chemical contained in a delivery system such as a bomb or artillery shell. While technically correct, a definition based on this conception would only cover a small portion of the range of things the CWC prohibits as "chemical weapons".

2:   "There are several reasons for the broad CWC definition, which includes munitions, precursor chemicals and equipment connected with production and use of chemical weapons.

3: "The complexity of the chemical weapon definition needed to meet the objectives of the Convention can be seen when considering "dual-use" items and technologies. Many chemicals used widely for peaceful and commercial purposes can also be used as, or applied to the creation of, chemical weapons. To address the potential threat posed by these chemicals, the CWC definition of a chemical weapon had to be as comprehensive as possible."

4: "...however, care had to be taken not to define chemical weapons in a way that unnecessarily hindered legitimate uses of chemicals and the economic and technological development to which such uses may lead."

5: "the definition could not result in restrictions of any State Party's right to acquire and retain conventional weapons and their associated delivery systems nor the right to produce and use chemicals for peaceful purposes."

6: "The definition eventually adopted allowed for a balanced approach under which the Convention's objectives can be met while the rights of States Parties are retained.


7: "To preclude contravention of the treaty's intent by separation of chemical weapons into component parts, the Convention defines each component of a chemical weapon (CW) as a chemical weapon—whether assembled or not, stored together or separately. Anything specifically designed or intended for use in direct connection with the release of a chemical agent to cause death or harm is itself a chemical weapon.

So it calls for a balanced approach and the application of common sense - I am still convinced that the USA sold Saddam Hussein no chemical weapons and you have still to prove otherwise, i.e. that the US Government and the Governments of various western countries knowingly licenced the sale to Iraq of chemicals that were specifically designed or intended for use in direct connection with the release of a chemical agent to cause death or harm - and of course the answer will come back that they didn't

By the way any news from all those ex-US service personnel who post here on Mudcat who over the past thirty or forty years must have handled and used all those chemical weapons that the US are supposed to possess for sale to tyrants right left and centre? - NO?? - well fancy that -I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:13 AM

Oh by the way mayomick if we take your view on what constitutes chemical weapons then the UNMOVIC and the Iraq Survey Group could revisit their findings and inspection reports and list all dual-use components and chemicals found in Iraq irrespective of their actual purpose for being there and then jointly declare that Iraq possessed WMD after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:44 AM

List of U.S. chemical weapons and their uses by them
Jim Carroll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._chemical_weapons_topics

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 03:53 AM

I suggest you follow all the links to see who is involved in the production of chemical weapons and how deeply - where's he gas-mask?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 05:46 AM

Your link Jom basically backs up what I have stated

US renounced the use of chemical and biological weapons sometime around 1966/1968 about ten years after the UK had done exactly the same thing.

US still remains the main world-wide centre for the storage of chemical and biological agents for destruction, the activity that the facilities mentioned are employed in. The agents from all over the world are not under the control of the US military, they are under the control of an independent international body responsible for supervising and verifying that those stocks of chemical and biological agents are destroyed - the sort of thing that the UN insisted that Saddam Hussein had to do.

Last time US forces specifically trained in the use of chemical weapons was deployed was during the Korean War - you get that from your wiki link Jom.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 06:10 AM

The US retains enormous stores of Chemical weapons and has used sarin and white phosphorus as weapons both in 1970 (on thir own trrops) in Laos in 1970 and in Fallujah – don't start Keith's stunt of ignoring the infromation – real all the articles
Jim Carroll

1998: In the US, Time Magazine and CNN ran unconfirmed news stories alleging that in 1970 U.S. Air Force A-1E Skyraiders engaged in a covert operation called Operation Tailwind, in which they deliberately dropped sarin-containing weapons on U.S. troops who had defected in Laos. CNN and Time Magazine later retracted the stories and fired the producers responsible.[28] The producers, Oliver and Smith, were chastised but defended their position by putting together a 77-page document supporting their side of the story, with testimony from military personnel, which they claim confirms the use of sarin.

Use in Iraq (2004)[edit source | editbeta]
Main article: White phosphorus use in Iraq
In April 2004, during the First Battle of Fallujah, a reporter from the North County Times described U.S. Marine mortar teams using a mixture of white phosphorus and high explosives to shell a cluster of buildings where Iraqi insurgents had been spotted throughout the week.[11] In November 2004, during the Second Battle of Fallujah, Washington Post embedded reporters stated that some U.S. artillery guns fired white phosphorus rounds that "create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water." [12] Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorus burns.[12]
On November 9, 2005 the Italian state-run broadcaster Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. aired a documentary titled "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre", alleging that the United States' used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah causing insurgents and civilians to be killed or injured by chemical burns.[citation needed] The filmmakers further claimed that the United States used incendiary MK-77 bombs in violation of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, quoted in the documentary, white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its toxic chemical properties.[13][14]
On November 15, 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense confirmed to the BBC that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah, stating "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives."[15][

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 06:39 AM

And we all know that napalm and Agent Orange were the most common weapons used by the U.S. in Vietnam (described respectively by you as "petrol" and "as harmless as weed-killer") - we watched the filth being poured down on Vietnamese peasants night after night on the tele.
Agent Orange only became a matter of concern when it was found that it was causing cancer among the pilots who were dropping the stuff - priorities eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 06:47 AM

They are not just my views on what constitutes chemical weapons, Teribus. They are also the USA government's views on what constitutes chemical weapons and the views of virtually every country in the world that have signed the OPCW convention banning chemical weapons . The only countries that are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention drawn up by the OPCW - whose description of what constitutes a CW I quoted yesterday - are Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan and Syria.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that it is the OPCW, working in close cooperation with the the UN, that sends out the CW inspectors. The organizations inspectors travel on United Nations Laissez-Passer.

You asked for proof that the USA had exported chemical weapons to Iraq and argued on 06 Sep 13 - 02:02 AM that "component parts and materials which through some convoluted process might possibly be used as part of a weapon" did not constitute such chemical weapons . But the Convention clearly states otherwise.
With your view of what constitutes a chemical weapon it would be impossible to sign states up to the banning of chemical weapons in any meaningful way. A state would be able to argue that, because the component parts hadn't yet been assembled , there was no proof that it was in possession of CWs.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 07:46 AM

Mick
Terminus has a penchant for re-writing chemistry manuals just as his friend has for re-writing history - we've been here before when they both were defending burning the faces off children with "non-chemical" chemical weapons.
Enjoy your discussion with him, but don't forget the Imodium - it can be a sickening ride.
Jim Carroll
Skarpi - if you're there, thanks again for the "Lunching the sarin missile attack", cheers me up no end each time I see it

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 07:52 AM


They are not just my views on what constitutes chemical weapons, Teribus. They are also the USA government's views on what constitutes chemical weapons and the views of virtually every country in the world that have signed the OPCW convention banning chemical weapons

No. They are not.
A chemical weapon is one intended to kill by its toxicty and have immediate effect.
Poison gas. Yes.
Napalm No.
White phos. No.
Agent orange. No.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 08:00 AM

To Jom "The Impartial":
I know how great is the credence you put on any item in print relating to alleged and unconfirmed happenings when it suits your purposes and how little you regard documented and verified fact from official sources when it does not. Your contributions in general terms are baseless, ill-founded biased rants interspersed with colour and block capitals. I very rarely pay them any attention.

By the bye WP is not a chemical weapon and neither is Agent Orange which is a herbicide.

Still no word from all those ex-US Servicemen about the chemical weapons they all prepared, handled and used eh? If what you hold to be true was in fact correct we would have by now been inundated with horrendous tales of atrocities committed by US troops, hideous accidents relating to accidental release of these agents, sale of such munitions by unscrupulous corrupt US servicemen to even more dastardly and unscrupulous terrorists. But instead of all or any of that we are regaled by the sound of silence. - That tell you anything Jom? To me it speaks volumes.

To mayomick: Being as aware of the workings and statements of the OPCW as you no doubt are then you must accept their definition by intent.

Dual-use items are only chemical weapons if they were exported, imported of manufactured specifically for and intended for use in direct connection with the release of a chemical agent to cause death or harm.

Artillery shells, rockets and mortar munitions are only chemical weapons if they were exported, imported of manufactured specifically for and intended for use in direct connection with the release of a chemical agent to cause death or harm.

I would imagine that in arid places with poor soil quality the need for fertilizer would be considered essential to increase the productivity of the soil and boost agricultural output - So no fertilizer can be sold in case they might be used to produce chemical weapons? - Bloody ridiculous - but I think you know that as well as I do, in fact as well as the chaps at OPCW do as they do not wish to unnecessarily hindered legitimate uses of chemicals and the economic and technological development or impose restrictions on any State Party's right to acquire and retain conventional weapons and their associated delivery systems nor the right to produce and use chemicals for peaceful purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 08:14 AM

"I know how great is the credence you put on any item in print relating to alleged and unconfirmed happenings when it suits your purpose"
Yeah- yeah yeah, we know all that!!
And now you have Santa's little helper to ease your burden while you're re-creating facts - he seems to have finished with the other thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 08:54 AM

Some of the U.S's "non-existent chemical weapons in their full glory
Have a nice meal!!
Jim Carroll


http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about

http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=117150

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/rc8M9SynE27TBNpC7b3lYL/Chemical-weapons-fact-and-fiction-in-US-case-against-Syria.html

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 09:52 AM

The scary part is that he actually believes that garbage he references.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 10:06 AM

"The scary part is that he actually believes that garbage he references."
Back under your Bridge while the men(ish) are talking Boo-Boo
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 10:14 AM

"Did the CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria"???

Well, of course, they did...

They also kidnapped the Lindberg baby...

They killed JFK...

They are responsible for global warming...

They rig the PowerBall lottery...

They are sending radio waves into people's heads to make people fearful and hateful...

They are sitting on the patent for the 100 mpg carburetor...

They rigged the 2000 election...

They are plotting to steal the planet Earth and hold it for ransome...

They implant transmitter/receivers in babies heads before the babies are given over to their parents so they can control their thoughts and actions...

They are not actually human but from another universe...

and...

They are responsible for 9/11...

There ya' have it, folks... Now here's what you need to do... Put your tin foil hats on real tight, take a couple aspirin, get in bed and pull the covers way up over your head...

Oh, and have a nice day...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 10:37 AM

5 out of 12 - not bad for you Boo-Boo
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 10:56 AM

""The BBC one of the most biased news services on the planet - that figures. By the way in listening to the BBC either on radio or on TV, you do not get to hear what people are saying, you get to hear the bits of what they are saying as selected by the programme editorial staff.""

As opposed to Faux News and the other mainstream US channels?
Georgie and B Liar were on telly non stop during the headlong charge toward war inraq and all they were TALKING about was WMDs.

It doesn't matter a tuppeny toss what other rasons there were. WMDs capable of a 45 minute deployment were being sold to us for breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper by Blair and Bush, not by corrupt or biased media. We were hearing the whole speeches in the UK and they were all about the one thing.

Ten months before, Blair received an e-Mail which stressed that the US were massaging the facts to support their desire to invade, which was leaked to the press.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 11:15 AM

Don T, my condemnation of the standard of reporting in western MSM is universal I hold up no news outlet as being better than any other - Journalists and Reporters now do not report they seem duty bound to give you "their" take on it, or worse still their news organisations take on it as dictated to them by their editorial staff before they even leave the office.

Hansard is good and reading verbatum transcripts of speeches also gives you both the detail and the context.

"It doesn't matter a tuppeny toss what other rasons there were. WMDs capable of a 45 minute deployment were being sold to us for breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper by Blair and Bush, not by corrupt or biased media."

Really?? I would advise you to go back and check - especially that bit about WMDs capable of a 45 minute deployment threatening us that was down to that reputable news organ famous for the "GOTCHA" Headline - The SUN. When Blair in his foreword to the Dodgy Dossier stated the 45 minute claim I knew exactly what he was talking about and referring to and any servicemen who served in any NATO force during the cold war would have recognised what was being said too.

Regime Change in Iraq became an official US Foreign Policy goal in the late summer of 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 04:07 PM

In regards to Obama's address to the nation, last night a vary convincing...but...some things just don't change!!:



Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Sep 13 - 02:26 PM

Well now it's time for a question from 'Sanity Land'.

Ready???

We've all seen that the nations of the world will not line up behind the U.S., in regards to this matter....the question: After the U.S. lied through their teeth about WMDs before the U.N., and invaded Iraq, based on that same lie...and then lies their asses off AGAIN, and repeatedly, in the U.N. about the Benghazi situation, being just a demonstration about a video, why is this not like the fairy tale about the boy that cried 'Wolf!'??

...and one more question: Do you believe them now?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 04:31 PM

Teribus and Keith. I provided links to the convention that your government signed up to . Take it up with your government if you don't agree with your government's view of what constitutes a chemical weapon. What about biological weapons?Do you accept that Rumsfield issued certificates allowing US firms to export anthrax and bubonic plague spores to Iraq ?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 11 Sep 13 - 04:37 PM

sorry that last one was me again. Come on now lads, let's hear your ideas on what Saddam and Rumsfield's dual purpose for bubonic plague could possibly have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 02:58 AM

Mick.
"The Convention defines chemical weapons much more generally. The term chemical weapon is applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action."

Not napalm.
Not white phos.
Not agent orange.
Not DU.
Nothing that US or UK stockpiles or uses, except tear gases that are ubiquitous.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 04:42 AM

One of the more disgusting features of the old usual individuals who persistently defend human rights abuses and war crimes is their scurrying behind "definitions"
A Vietnamese child can be photographed running down a road, her back melting from the effect of being covered with napalm - it's OK it's not a "chemical weapon"
The photographs of Palestinian children with horrific facial and body burns after being caught in a white-phosphorus 'rain-storm' - fine, not a chemical weapon.
U.S. pilots, having sprayed Agent Orange on Vietnamese peasants, return home dying from the effects of the shit they have dropped -no problem, not chemical weapons.
Acceptable Mass-murder by a rule book.
What kind of society have we developed if we allow these ethics to prevail; if we accept deliberate slaughter because the chemicals that are used are not "on somebody's list"?
And what kind of people use the fact that they are "not on a list" as some kind of support for their use?
This shit is stockpiled in huge amounts by the U.S. and the U.K. - they are chemicals, they are not stored for weeding gardens or cleaning paintwork, they are intended for killing and maiming this makes them chemical weapons, whatever some ******* book says, and to sanction such behaviour has added a new weapon to the killers arsenal - semantics.
The U.S. deliberately used saran on its own troops in Laos - there was a little flurry of bluster from our 'weapons expert (sic(k)) and then he rode off into the sunset - not even worthy of comment.
Hs place to be taken over by our good ol' reliable resident 'extremist on just about everything'
I often wonder if their reactions to these horrors would be the same if it was their own children's cindered and melted corpses being brought home in body bags, Kilner jars... or however they transport such remains - they way these inhuman prats argue, I often suspect that it would not make the slightest difference, such is their fanaticism - "my philosophy, right or wrong"
Why do these pricks refuse to recognise such behaviour as barbaric and why do they leave the door open for it to happen over, and over and over - amen?
And if these atrocities are "legal" why do they defend them as being such and allow them to be used in their/our name?
All rhetorical, I'm afraid - I know the answer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 04:56 AM

Its not OK if its not a chemical weapon.
You can commit a war crime with a pointed stick.

If you want to talk about chemical weapons with their particular issues, we need to know what we are talking about.

If we each make up our own definitions of what constitutes a chemical weapon, we have no common ground.
I suggest we use the internationally recognised definition.
Why not Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 04:57 AM

The effects of "ubiquitous" tear gas BTW
Jim Carroll

Health effects of tear gas and pepper spray:
Although the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits the use of tear gas and pepper spray in warfare, for domestic policing and related uses by state forces, these chemicals are allowed to be used on people and are labeled as "riot control agents." The CWC stipulates that these chemical weapons must have effects that disappear shortly after exposure, meaning no long-term health effects; however, in a number of cases, researchers have linked the use of tear gas and pepper spray to possible serious illness and death. This research echoes people's stories about tear gas and pepper spray.
In cases of the use of tear gas and pepper spray as the central element of a state offensive against people protesting in the streets and/or expressing their dissent to the conditions in which they live, people who have been assaulted with large amounts of tear gas and pepper spray, sometimes for a prolonged period of time, have reported acute and long-lasting health effects. During times like the 1987 government attack on the people of South Korea during a wave of protests where 351,000 tear gas canisters were used against demonstrators in multiple cities, or the massive use of tear gas in Quebec City in Canada in 2001 during the Free Trade Area of the Americas protests, or with the near-daily use of tear gas against people in struggle in Bahrain, Egypt, and Palestine, again in multiple cities/towns, people have reported severe health problems. In the case of Bahrain, Egypt, and Palestine, there have been many reported deaths (54 in Bahrain alone since 2011) due in some cases to tear gas canisters (the most common being CS gas) being fired at a high velocity as projectile weapons, though in other cases it is due to the exposure to the gas itself.
Experiences reported beyond the immediate effects of the tear gas include coughing, shortness of breath, and other lung-related problems (heighted in people who already have lung problems), delayed menstruation, and reports of miscarriages and stillbirths associated with the gas. These effects have also been reported in research studies, along with reports that tear gas can also cause damage to the heart and liver. In the case of pepper spray, deaths have similarly been reported (mostly in jails and prisons) due to exposure to pepper spray that is well over the "recommended" amount from the manufacturer and is used in an enclosed space and/or over prolonged periods of time. One infamous news story from 1995 reports the LA Police Department as admitting that, over a 5-year period, 61 people died while in police custody as the result of the use of pepper spray. Again, prior lung problems heighten the danger of this chemical weapon. There have been few research studies of the health effects of pepper spray, which means there is much less documentation of its longer-term effects beyond those cases of death which sometimes become public. Many continue to call for more clinical research studies about the health effects of pepper spray and tear gas.
It's important to note that in the case of tear gas, because the nature of this weapon, that in the cases of the use of the gas as a primary tool of state repression, longer-term health effects (lasting at least a week to becoming a chronic condition) were also experienced by people who were not in direct contact with police forces, which means that the health effects of tear gas can spread to people who were not at the scene at the time or were the intended target of its use.
It's also important to note that "tear gas" is not actually a gas. The active chemicals in all different kinds of tear gas and pepper spray are solid at room temperature, and need to be mixed with other chemicals in order to produce what is called an aerosol— solid particles finely dispersed in the air, similar to smoke or a cloud. They can also be dissolved in liquid solution, which is how pepper spray is commonly used. This is significant since the health effects of tear gas and pepper spray exposure can vary depending on the kind of aerosolizing agents or solvents used. For example, when silica gel is added to CS to form CS1 or CS2, the result is a stronger tear gas, which is more water resistant. Methylene chloride— a known carcinogen— was used as a solvent in the tear gas and pepper spray used against WTO protesters in Seattle in 1999. This is believed to have caused many health problems for protesters who were exposed.
Part of the problem is that the health effects of tear gas and pepper spray have not been researched thoroughly enough, and often what research has been done has been funded by or otherwise influenced by the very manufacturers who produce these weapons. One notorious example of this kind of corruption took place in Chile. On May 18, 2011, the Chilean government announced— in the wake of a study by the University of Chile which demonstrated that CS exposure may lead to miscarriages— that they would temporarily suspend the use of tear gas throughout the country. Latin America News Dispatch quotes then-Interior Minister Rodrigo Hinzpeter as saying: "[I]t seems reasonable to suspend the use of tear gas until new medical reports dispel any doubts about the appropriateness of employing these gases to confront situations of public disorder and vandalism." Fortunately for the Chilean government— and unfortunately for Chilean protesters, such as the 30,000 protesters who, a week earlier, had gathered to demonstrate against the HidroAysén hydroelectric project and been faced with tear gas— the government found exactly the evidence they were looking for, from the manufacturers themselves! The Chilean government put together a report, three days later, citing US company Combined Systems International (supplier of tear gas to the Chilean police), arguing that tear gas was safe. The report, and the lifting of the ban on tear gas, came just in time for the state to use tear gas against the next round of HidroAysén protests.
There is a similar story about how pepper spray got approved within the US for use by law enforcement. According to a report by Earth First! Journal: "[P]epper spray was originally introduced in the U.S. in the 1980s by the Postal Service as a dog repellent... The FBI endorsed it as an 'official chemical agent' in 1987 but it wasn't until 1991 that more than 3,000 local law enforcement agencies added it to their arsenals. This surge of interest hinged on a widely-circulated and influential study by FBI special agent Thomas Ward. As the FBI's chief expert on OC, Ward peddled the painful stuff like he was in a state of police-state-hallelujah.
"On February 12, 1996, we find Thomas Ward pleading guilty to a single count felony for accepting a $57,500 'kickback' from the manufacturers of Cap-Stun brand pepper spray. The second-largest company in the growing pepper spray industry, Cap-Stun also happened to be owned by Ward's very own wife, and, coincidentally, was the exact brand recommended by Ward as far back as the mid-'80s. Initially facing a $250,000 fine and five years in prison, Ward got off with two months in prison and three years probation. The FBI responded to his conviction by proclaiming it would continue using Cap-Stun since it was 'unaware of any basis for finding that pepper spray is not...safe and effective.' Ward's corrupt study is still cited today as justification for use of OC. Yet in Ottawa, Ontario; Berkeley, California; and Tucson, Arizona; police departments have chosen to stop using pepper spray due to the controversy (and costly lawsuits) it brings with it."
In other words, these so-called "non-lethal weapons" are insufficiently researched, and the research that is out there is often pushed by the companies manufacturing the weapons in the first place. What little research there is that is not sponsored by the manufacturers themselves is often done against great odds, and it generally takes a mass deployment of tear gas on the part of a state for researchers to be able to conduct such research. For instance, two landmark studies which have been done on the longterm impact of tear gas exposure, both by the group Physicians for Human Rights, were done during or in the aftermath of uprisings. The first was the 1987 uprising in South Korea. The second is the recent and ongoing uprising in Bahrain. In the 1987 report, after outlining some of the vital research which needed to take place, the NGO concluded that there "is considerable evidence that these essential studies cannot be undertaken in South Korea today. The government has not allowed research by responsible medical investigators of this problem and has refused to identify for health professionals the chemical compounds it is using, thereby blocking essential medical studies and proper treatment." In the 2012 Bahrain report...
http://facingteargas.org/bp/38/health-effects

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 05:04 AM

Is there one single country in the whole world that does not have tear gas?
No.
What is your point Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 07:26 AM

It's Teribus who is disputing that internationally agreed definition, Keith. It includes precursors. The convention was deliberately drafted so as to prevent the stockpiling of ingredients for CWs. Whoever drew up the brief description I quoted from must have had the dissembling defence of CWs coming from the likes of Teribus in mind.

Two quotes, the first from Teribus on 6 September :


"If US arms manufacturers sold weapons and exported WEAPONS to Saddam Hussein please provide details. You have specifically stated that chemical weapons were sold - please don't give a long list of component parts and materials which through some convoluted process might possibly be used as part of a weapon (Making chemical agents is easy, any facility that makes fertilizer can do it - weaponising those agents thankfully is extremely difficult)"

The second quote from the internationally recognized description of a CW :
"The term chemical weapon is applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves."


The Halabja chemical attack occured on March 16, 1988 ,towards the end of the Iraq -Iran war . Iraqi chemical weapons killed between 3,200 and 5,000 Kurds and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians.
According to the wiki entry on the attack:
"Among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from American companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips was thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, according to leaked portions of Iraq's "full, final and complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 08:00 AM

Italian journalist Domenico Quirico and Belgian teacher Pierre Piccinin da Prata, who were kidnapped in Syria in April and released five days ago , have said in subsequent interviews that they believed the rebels were responsible for the gas attack .The two who described themselves as " fierce opponents" of Assad had originally visited Syria as supporters of what they saw as a legitimate uprising against the Syrian regime . The men were obviously deeply traumatized after being "treated like animals" by their hosts-turned-kidnappers .But their reports of an overheard conversation between their captors conducted in English on Skype and indicating that the rebels launched the attack to prompt Western forces to intervene , should in my opinion be given at least as much credibility as the unsupported assertions coming from the likes of John Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 09:29 AM

For consideration:FYI

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 09:37 AM

Mayomick - agree!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 12:02 PM

"Is there one single country in the whole world that does not have tear gas?"
So what - does that in any way excuse its use by Britain or America?
You even gave your blessing that it should be sold to Assad - please tell me that this wasn't your suggestion and that Jack Straw said it first!!
You haven't even bothered to comment on the listed effects of tear gas - does that mean that you deny them, you accept them, you don't give a toss either way what effect shit has on people's lives or health?
You described the stuff as "ubiquitous" now you are silent about its effects other than to claim "everybody does it".
Is that fact that most countries persecute and neglect Travellers an argument for Britain or Ireland continuing to do the same (which they both do)   
What's my point? I really don't have to make it - you are doing it perfectly for me.
You have defended every war crime, atrocity or act of humanity by Britain, Israel and America at one time or another on this thread - every single one that has been discussed.
It seems that war crimes and acts of inhumanity cease to be such when our 'chosen nations' do them.
It is one thing for us to throw up our hands in despair at our politicians and claim that what we think won't make a difference - we've all done that.
But it's quite another to lie, distort and misrepresent the facts in defence of acts of inhumanity as you have persistently done - added to which you never fail to back these defences with accusations of "liar", "leftie" "naive"... and other such shit.
You seem to have made it your life's work to support the worst aspects of humanity.
You are truely one of the most evil persons I have ever encountered.
I don't suppose you are going to give us an explanation of why you claimed tear gas to be ubiquitous - a lie to defend the West having and using it regularly or simply self-imposed ignorance _ I won't bother my arse waiting for an answer
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 03:02 PM

Another one to support - or deny

Irish Times 12.9.13

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 sarin, 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 revealed by UK business secretary Vince Cable in a letter to Sir Robert Stanley, chairman of the House of Commons committee 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 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."

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: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 03:20 PM

"Is there one single country in the whole world that does not have tear gas?"
So what - does that in any way excuse its use by Britain or America?

Er, yes.
It makes us no better or worse than anyone else in the world, so why single us out?

And when was tear gas last used by either US or UK?
And why are you so desperate to find some fault?
Prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 03:51 PM

extract.
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 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: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Sep 13 - 03:57 PM

I just hate when this happens...........right, AGAIN!!!

Now, as you WERE saying??????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 03:41 AM

"And when was tear gas last used by either US or UK?"
British tear gas was used on Egyptian protestors in 2011, in Turkey this year, and it has just been placed on the British police forces' "wish list" along with tasers according to today's papers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114601/Water-cannons-streets-months-Tear-gas-Tasers-police-wish-list-combat-riots.html
And still you defend Britain's appalling record of selling weapons and equipment to monsters.
"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: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 04:07 AM

Britain licensed sniper rifle ammunition to Syria
Deliberate lie.
You know it is not true.

Should Britain have refused to trade with every Arab country because they were all nasty repressive dictatorships?
You would then have accused us of racism!

In all your time on Mudcat, you have been serially and highly critical of one Mid East country but never posted a word against any of its Arab neighbours including Assad's Syria before the uprising.

You never before then objected to anyone trading with Syria or Egypt.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 13 - 06:46 PM

IT STILL has NOT been proven, that Assad launched the strike.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 03:08 AM

"IT STILL has NOT been proven, that Assad launched the strike."
There seems to be a little bunch of Assad fans here rather keen on casting doubt on Assad's culpability in using chemical weapons, despite that fact that this latest is only one of a claimed 15 such attacks.
It is almost certain that he carried out these attacks; he certainly has been openly slaughtering his people since the outbreak of the protests and he and his family have been slaughtering and torturing Syrians for generations to the full knowledge of the "Free World" who have fully co-operated with that behavior by supplying him with the wherewithal to carry it out and turning a blind eye while they did.

"While countries around the world condemned Syria for adding to its arsenal as most nations were eliminating their own, few challenged the buildup, and some were eager to profit from it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/world/middleeast/with-the-world-watching-syria-amassed-nerve-gas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Syria is only one of many despotic States to behave in this way and which have been a long-standing and valued customers of the arms trade.
Whatever the outcome of the present investigations, if they conclude in Assad being slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again, a return to normalcy will be more Homs and Allepo's and a continuing slaughter while the world stands by and watches.
Assad will have been the winner of this particular little skirmish and he will be able to get on with the job in hand.
Pity the old 'Carry On' team of film-makers aren't still around - they could have added "slaughtering" to their list of winners.
Having finally decided that enough is enough in Syria by drawing a rather hypocritical "red line" at the use of gas, peraps they might get around to looking at the murderous cynicism of selling any sort of weapons to states who have "dubious records" as that nice Mr Cable once described it - whoops, there goes that pig flying past the window again!.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 03:55 AM

Jim.....if Mr Cameron or Mr Milliband were to be confronted by an armed socialist uprising in our own perfectly democratic country, do you really not think that the army would be sent in to crush it pretty damn quick?

Mr Assad is attempting to rule a nation of religious factions pumped up by zealots and agencies of foreign powers.....how do you expect him to react?

You and all "liberals" are living in a fairyland if you really believe what you espouse.
Sooner or later, we in the West are going to have to deal with things as they really are, not as we imagine them to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 04:23 AM

"how do you expect him to react?"
So - another killer in your fan book - wonder if we can arrange that he shares a cell with Brievik (who is now studying politics, you will be pleased to here)
This started as a protest - as part of the Arab Spring - not as an armed revolt.
Whatever limitations the demands were they could only improve the prevailing situation of torture, secret arrests, the suppression and "disappearing" of all opposition - a step in the right direction.
You people whine on about lack of democracy in these countries, but whenever anybody tries to improve the situation you're the first in line to back the monsters - is that really your idea of revolution - sitting on your hands and waiting for the right moment?
I have no objection to being describes as a "liberal" - it is, along with "leftie", "naive", "republican - (no - wait till I put the capital letter in, I do think it strange to be ruled by generations of in-breds) Republican.... as meaningless as any other label you people substitute for argument, but feel free to use such terms if it saves you the trouble of thinking.
I am far from "liberal" in my views and am well used to the "let's - wait - until - the - conditions - are - perfect - before - we - get - up - out - of - our - armchairs - and - actually - do - something" school of thought.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 05:11 AM

Jim is no liberal on this!
He favoured Western military intervention long before the issue of gas arose.
And he did not favour just a limited air strike.
He demanded an actual boots on the ground invasion by US and British forces to solve another Muslim nation's problems, without Security Council backing and ignoring all vetoes.

If you are looking for labels it would have to be Western Militarist Imperialist Fascist.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 05:48 AM

I opposed war on Iraq , but was never a fan of Saddam, Jim. The NSA would certainly know whether or not the alleged skype conversation overheard by the Belgian academic and Italian journalist held captive was genuine or not. When are we going to hear from them ?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 06:18 AM

"I opposed war on Iraq , but was never a fan of Saddam, Jim"
Ake the Ache may not be actually supporting Assad, but suggesting that he was "crushing a rebellion" by slaughtering protesters is certainly to give comfort - similarly, he didn't actually support Breivik's massacre, but his suggestion that some things the killer said motivated him were "worh considering" has the effect in diverting the blame to the victims
I oppose the US going in anywhere, but I think the situation is very different here.
Iraq was about oil - pure and simple, which is why the Bush Babies acted as they did.
Here, the US appears to have been shamed into going through some sort of motions to seem do be doing something.
I hope they don't take action and that the threat of doing so is enough, but hand-wringing at Assad's behaviour using chemical weapons he was helped develop by the West is not an option.
The suggestion that I ever proposed boots on the ground invasion is easily proved - show where I have ever made such a suggestion.
I have specified intervention in the massacres - no more
The fact that the accusation was made by our resident hand-wringer who suggested that the killer would be stopped if we continued selling him tear gas and armoured cars (and probably sniper bullets, of course is evidence of where he is coming from)
However, if continuing to make it up as he goes along takes some of the sting out of the hidings he has suffered of late, why should I begrudge him a little relief
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:27 AM

I have very different political views from Keith, but I certainly have never seen him receive " a hiding" at your hands...or anyone else's for that matter.

The Arab Spring?....get real, these people don't want, or need Western style "democracy".
Just look at Iraq, Libya, Egypt.....are you blind?

Right at the beginning I said Egypt would be the template and what have we got as an alternative to "democracy"?
An elected govt(which the West didn't like) overthrown by a military coup, hundreds of civilian demonstrators shot in cold blood, all political opposition criminalised, jailed, tortured.
And this military regime receives aid and arms from the West, without a word about missile strikes or UN resolutions.

You may be blind Jim, but cant you SMELL the hypocrisy?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: pdq
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:17 AM

There is no reason for this thread to continue.

The title is asinine and it has become simply become another place for the Carrol County Blue Baby to rant and to call people names.

There is another thread with a reasonable tille on the same subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 10:51 AM

"but I certainly have never seen him receive " a hiding" at your hands"
Not by my hands Ache - it was all self-nfliicted, the rest of us could only watch and wonder
And no - you might consider yourself different from Keith but you're two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned - what with your views on homosexuals and your rants about immigration - this is the stuff the BNP and such shit are made of.
"these people don't want, or need Western style "democracy".
And you think Western Democracy with it's Arms sales, predatory economies, histories of Empire and lust for oil is a dream to work for?
These people have moved away from feudal monarchies; they might even achieve real democracy in time, but the first step is to get out of the sheikhs, imams and all the other garbage that has kept them where they were for millennia (with the full support of the west as long as they carried their loyalty cards and kept the oil flowing).
World inaction placed the Syrian protests in the hands of the religious radicals.
You whinge because they are not democratic yet you slag them off when they try to do something about it - what the **** do you suggest -that they just lie back and let and let the saran roll over them.
On humanitarian grounds alone something needs to be done to put right our malign influence on our "valued trading partners".
The West has been fully aware of the plight for centuries, yet they had barely put their walking shoes on and taken to the streets when Cameron and his merry men opened a huge Arms Fair deliberately targeting the very garbage they were protesting about.
"An elected govt(which the West didn't like)"
Er no - which the people didn't like, hat's why they took to the streets again - maybe if the West had done something other than arming the dictators down the ages the potential revolution wouldn't have fallen into the hands of the army - who knows?
PDQ -
Don't you find it somewhat contradictory to accuse someone of ranting and name calling with " Carrol County Blue Baby to rant and to call people names" - or is there something we haven't been told - address the arguments if you want to get on in the world my son!
I have to say I admire your style - making your first entry onto this thread a demand that we all move off to another one - you trying to tell us you'ver got B.O.?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 03:51 PM

The suggestion that I ever proposed boots on the ground invasion is easily proved - show where I have ever made such a suggestion.
I have specified intervention in the massacres - no more

Yes Jim.
And the "intervention" you demanded was British and US forces going into Syria.
Remember now?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 05:45 PM

""There is no reason for this thread to continue.""

I have to agree - I never understood why there were/are two threads with basically similar content (and posters)) - regardless of the somewhat odd (and possibly leading) title.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 07:02 PM

Aww..You don't need to call it quits for everybody else, just because you've jumped to conclusions about who launched the attack, and can't PROVE it....otherwise, your premise is all off....an that certainly IS a possibility, isn't it?

Let's see now...if there are corporate/bankster interests involved, and they own the 'news' media, and foment, then guide the national debate, about it, both to the 'right' and 'left' dialogues regarding it, is that to say that that is true???...when the whole of your opinion regarding it, is based on what they're telling you?

As Jim, I'm NO fan of Assad or any of it!...
But I'm also NOT a fan of irresponsible propaganda, when it CAN'T or HASN'T been backed up.

That is NOT unreasonable, now is it?

After the whoppers we've heard about Vietnam, Central America, Contras, drugs for arms to Iran, hostages, WMS' and the Iraq invasion, TWICE, 'Fast and Furious', Benghazi, Libya, Egypt so on and so forth.....and all of a sudden, for NO reason at all, we're supposed to believe this unverifiable novel????

....and it was ONLY a 'co-incidence' that we invaded Iraq the second time, when they were threatening and negotiating to go OFF the dollar, in their oil trade???

...and nobody else you can think of 'just might' have had a reason to pull this off???
...even for any other reasons beyond that???

THEN, you get real nasty about it, based on your unverifiable 'opinion'???????????
That's not to say that it didn't happen that way...but a little bit of corroboration, would sure be a luxury, wouldn't it?.....but as it is, it's not even listed in the 'bare necessities'!

Just sumptin' to tink about!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 08:33 PM

In a court of justice, past crimes (or the crimes of others, or in other times) are not a major factor, if entered into consideration at all in determining guilt or innocence.

So, why would the past escapades of the CIA, George Bush, Assad's father, bankers and oil deals in other times and areas be a major factor to consider in this case?

That is a real logical puzzler for me. It seems like a very illogical and skewed approach to getting closer to determining who used the chemical weapons on civilians in Syria. IMO, If one can set those aside the course is open to get closer to the most likely candidates. Unfortunately, many of the most "level-headed thinkers on mudcat seem to be stuck in that directionless mire.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 13 - 09:14 PM

Chances of the CIA being the bad guys here = 1%...

Chances of the "rebels" being the bad guys here = 1%...

Chances of Assad being the bad guy here = 98%...

I mean, let's get real here... The area outside of Damascus where the Sarin attack occurred was an area that was worrisome to Assad and his regime... They had tried over and over to take it out because of it's proximity to Damascus with no avail...

Face it, the CIA and the "rebels" had nothing to gain by gassing this area...

Sorry to inflict reason into an unreasonable discussion...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 02:04 AM

Yes Bobert.
In our courts unattainable absolute proof is not demanded.
Just "beyond reasonable doubt" or beyond the doubt of a reasonable person.
In civil courts, a decision can be reached just on "the balance of probabilities."

How strong is your doubt GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 02:27 AM

Bobert: "Face it, the CIA and the "rebels" had nothing to gain by gassing this area..."

Well, I never alluded to 'and'....and yes, both had something to gain. independently of each other.

Bobert: "Sorry to inflict reason into an unreasonable discussion..."

Don't worry, you didn't!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 03:30 AM

"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 the "intervention" you demanded was British and US forces going into Syria."
I asked you to provide a source for your accusation - you still haven't
From the beginning I have argued that if the UN will do nothing it is up to those who have assisted Assad with weapons sales and long term support should intervene to stop the slaughter - the terms I have used throughout - which you have described as "Western Militarist Imperialist Fascist.".
You, on the other hand opposed any form of intervention, claiming what was happening was "civil war" .
On having it pointed out that Israel supported intervention you executed an incredible U-turn, claiming you had agreed with them from the beginning, arguing:
"Not withstanding Cameron's defeat, UKIP was the only British party opposed to the intervention.
In US, it seems to be the Tea Party."
The "intervention" you were supporting (or not, depending what Israel told you to support) was air attacks.
You have reduced your input into this forum to lies and total distortions of the arguments of others - not just here but on most threads you participate in now - you have been given evidence of this and have on every occasion just chosen to walk away from that evidence without comment, that is what I "remember".
If you have any evidence of Imperialism and fascism (apart from your own) produce it - I wouldn't in a million years expect you to withdraw in - and apologising would be "grovelling" wouldn't it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 04:46 AM


From the beginning I have argued that if the UN will do nothing it is up to those who have assisted Assad with weapons sales and long term support should intervene to stop the slaughter

That would be Russia really, but you meant UK and US.
I, like all sane people, opposed Western forces entering Syria.

I always supported Obama's proposed limited air and missile intervention to deter use of illegal weapons, as a lesser of evils.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 05:43 AM

"I always supported Obama's proposed limited air and missile intervention"
Yeah, yeah, yeah - sure you did - pity you waited for Israel to give the go-ahead - your support!
"Not withstanding Cameron's defeat, UKIP was the only British party opposed to the intervention In US, it seems to be the Tea Party."
"That would be Russia"
Britain and America historically have bee the world's leading arms suppliers for terrorist states - including Syria and their supplies have included chemical weapons - go ask that nice Vince Cable - he's already said so, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind repeating it.
If the british police get their way we will shortly be seeing the "harmless" tear gas used as crowd control on the streets of Britain - lest we forget:

"Although the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits the use of tear gas and pepper spray in warfare, for domestic policing and related uses by state forces, these chemicals are allowed to be used on people and are labeled as "riot control agents." The CWC stipulates that these chemical weapons must have effects that disappear shortly after exposure, meaning no long-term health effects; however, in a number of cases, researchers have linked the use of tear gas and pepper spray to possible serious illness and death. This research echoes people's stories about tear gas and pepper spray."
http://facingteargas.org/bp/38/health-effects
Britain and the US remain among the world's top five arms dealers along with Russia and China, can't remember the other one, Germany, I think - great company they would have us Britons keep.
I didn't think for minute you would produce a shred of evidence proving my "Western Militarist Imperialist Fascist" tendencies - you never have gone in for that sort of thing
Keep on making it up - helps raise the tone of this forum!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 05:50 AM

To say that only Assad had anything to gain from the choice of target is actually to misunderstand what the gain might be.

If (I stress IF) the rebels wanted to goad the Western Powers into attacking Assad, what could be more logical than choosing a target which, on the surface, would seem to benefit only Assad?

Surely that would produce exactly the degree of belief in Assad's guilt that we see here.

I'm with GfS on this one. Nobody here KNOWS who used that gas!

To assume that the rebels would not be that devious, or that callous, is to forget that they are fighting for their lives, and their religious beliefs at the same time.

Until we absolutely KNOW who to blame, we don't know who to support, because if the rebels should happen to be guilty, I for one would not want to see them in power.

Now Ake and others can fulminate over my "liberal" views.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 07:41 AM

including Syria and their supplies have included chemical weapons

No.
No weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 07:56 AM

Don T... no fulminating from me, I also agree with Sanity.

A true "liberal" as opposed to liberal, would immediately blame the Assad govt, regardless of proof.....because they see them as undemocratic, anti human rights, equality etc.....all the things that are simply unrealistic in Middle Eastern society.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 08:22 AM

You continue to claim this - you have yourself along with Mudcat's self appointed weapons expert, identified "MERELY" sniper rifle bullets, (though you hastily changed your mind when you realised how stupid you had been)
You have tried to pass off chemical components for saran as "harmless" - the fact that Britain only withdrew the licences when they were told to by the UN rules is immaterial - they sell weapons to monsters.
You refuse to comment on the arms sales to other terror states even though the British Trade Secretary has admitted it as a fact
You are making claims that are contradicted by public knowledge and you don't even go through the motions of producing evidence to back up your stupid claims - THEY ARE ENTIRELY MADE UP BY YOU>
I learned very quickly that it was necessary to check your attributed claims as you had a nasty habit of doctoring them - now you hardly ever give links
You are a fantasist.
The British Police Forces have applied for permission and if they get it, will shortly be using chemical weapons on protesters here just as Assad is using them in Syria - you have had the proof of this and you haven't even bothered to comment on this - presumably you have no problem with it!
Britain continues to sell arms to monsters, despite the fact that the Third World is in upheaval trying to rid of some of the British Arms Industry's best customers
Your continued silence indicates that you have no problem with this either - I don't believe for a minute that you are prepared to show us that this is not the case - beyond just denying it, of course?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 09:04 AM

Looks as if the Harvard guy has won the chess match... Yeah, the righties have gone thru their usual temper tantrums, propagandizing, woof-woofin' and all but breaking down in tears over Obama's handing on Syria but...

...no new wars...

...no $2-3T run thru the shredder...

...no shots fired at or by our service people...

...control over Assad's chemical weapons...

Obama to the GfinS's and other righties of the world, "Check mate, ya'll"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 09:19 AM

yourself along with Mudcat's self appointed weapons expert, identified "MERELY" sniper rifle bullets, (though you hastily changed your mind when you realised how stupid you had been)

Yes, even I can make a mistake.
Again sorry.
I have no reason to believe sniper rounds were supplied, and nor do you because they were not.

You have tried to pass off chemical components for saran as "harmless"
Flouride is not a very harmful substance, compared to say alcohol or lavatory cleaner.

- the fact that Britain only withdrew the licences when they were told to by the UN rules is immaterial - they sell weapons to monsters.

No.
There are no UN sanctions.
There are EU sanctions that UK was instrumental in putting in place.

You refuse to comment on the arms sales to other terror states even though the British Trade Secretary has admitted it as a fact

Because this thread is about Syria Jim.

You are making claims that are contradicted by public knowledge and you don't even go through the motions of producing evidence to back up your stupid claims - THEY ARE ENTIRELY MADE UP BY YOU>

No.
THAT is made up.

I learned very quickly that it was necessary to check your attributed claims as you had a nasty habit of doctoring them -
Lie Jim.

The British Police Forces have applied for permission and if they get it, will shortly be using chemical weapons on protesters here just as Assad is using them in Syria - you have had the proof of this and you haven't even bothered to comment on this - presumably you have no problem with it!

Huh?
You are just raving now.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 10:46 AM

"Yes, even I can make a mistake."
I trust this was intended as an ironic remark?
"I have no reason to believe sniper rounds were supplied, and nor do you because they were not."
You and your dopey buddy were certain they were and you were willing to pass of such a sale as "harmless"
"Flouride is not a very harmful substance, compared to say alcohol or lavatory cleaner."
Is is also "the" essential component of saron and knowing this, Britain licenced it to be sold to Assad..
"Because this thread is about Syria Jim."
Good old "thread-drift" standby - it is what anybody who considers it relevant to the subject - arms sales to mass murderers is as relevent as it gets - obviously not to you!
"You are just raving now."
Byee!1
Jim Carroll
You've been given the possible effects of tear gas, you have been given the article covering the UK's police forces request to use it for crowd control - "put them together and what have you got, bippety-bobbety-boo
Therest is the old usual of "All denials and lies" - ah well!!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 01:23 PM

Bobert: "Obama to the GfinS's and other righties of the world, "Check mate, ya'll"..."


Stop playing with yourself...or you'll stay blind!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 01:29 PM

Not only is arms Trading not a thread drift, but it is the key to all these atrocities and human rights abuses lies in the West's thriving arms industry and its willingness to sell to just about anybody – but this shrinking violet has kept her light under a bushel and has even sold chemical weapons to Iran
Jim Carroll

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=362353

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/israels-chemical-weapons-stockpile-highlights-western-hypocrisy_092013

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=776

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.528993

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/who-will-control-israels-arms-dealers/

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 02:38 PM

Russia and China supply ALL Assad's arsenal of atrocity.
Just them.
What obsession keeps you trying to implicate the innocent you deranged, posturing buffoon?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Sep 13 - 05:56 PM

Well. it does show a lot of the hands that sell 'stuff'....I wonder to who else?....which, of course means that there cannot be a determination of 'who did it' and 'who didn't'....before premature sabre rattling should be blathering forward on. Maybe there is some 'blame shifting' going on...or maybe it was made to appear to be somebody to whom it wasn't.
Regardless, all parties should dispose of them.....now do you think that whomever 'runs' that operation, can be trusted??...to even get rid of their own???
.....even disregarding a higher bidder??

Just a thought.

Jeez! Would it be 'nice' to be able to trust the governments that are supposed to be protecting their citizens...............(again?)

Oh, well..back to the music....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 02:16 AM

"What obsession keeps you trying to implicate the innocent"
Probably the same obsession that drives you to protect the guilty you half-wit.
The facilitating of fanatical monsters by cynical bastards who use the misery of the world to fill their bank accounts has made the miserable place for our children to inherit and there is nothing more pathetic than those who may not benefit, but stand by and egg them on.
"Russia and China supply ALL Assad's arsenal of atrocity"
That may be true at the present time, but Britain and the rest of the "Free World" have given the killers and torturers of Syria a free passage for as long as they have been killing and torturing, and their refusal to lift a finger to help when the killing and torturing is done in the open makes them fully complicit in their atrocities.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 02:45 AM

All that you accuse us of, Russia and China have vastly more guilt.
Iran and the Gulf states have more guilt.
Hezblollah has more.
The Jihadists have more.

Why single out the least guilty Jim?
You can not blame the West for any of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 03:27 AM

Your moronic sycophancy in attempting to steer these discussions into your own particular comfort zone not only cuts across what everybody else is doing here, but it goes against everything this forum stands for - it has given you the reputation you now have on Mudcat.
If you put forward your own arguments instead of attempting to suppress those of others (thread drift being your most common stunt) you might have something to say - instead of trying to block what others have to say if you find yourself at a loss to answer for yourself.
Your "more or less" guilty really does it for me; it takes me back to the fights we had in junior school "he stared it sir" - for Christ's sake, grow up and deal with these subjects as an adult, or leave them to those who wish to - you are humiliating yourself and fucking up yet another serious subject with your inanities.
Grow Up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 04:27 AM

Who armed Syria Jim?
Name and shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 04:40 PM

Gosh, I hate to interrupt your 'sweet talk'...but I heard an interview, a while back, from an officer in the military from Iraq, who claimed to have overseen the transfer or such weapons from Iraq to Syria, as the U.S. was getting ready to invade Iraq.....I can't confirm that the story was true, other than I did hear the interview. Problem with that story is, that maybe there were WMDs in Iraq, and Bush was right(?)...in which case they got them from us!!
But like I said, I can't confirm that the guy being interviewed was for real...but it did sound that way.
As the way things are unfolding, skepticism and cynicism may be more useful than gullibility!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Sep 13 - 05:17 PM

""A true "liberal" as opposed to liberal, would immediately blame the Assad govt, regardless of proof.....because they see them as undemocratic, anti human rights, equality etc.....""

And that is exactly what they are! I just don't see the justification for military action based on the "balance of probabilities".

For me, proof should precede action, not follow it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 01:50 AM

Therefore under your literal approach to the CWC no country can ever declare itself to be "free" of chemical weapons, no country can ever rid itself of chemical weapons, no country can ever state that it does not export chemical weapons - your view point even reading the links you have supplied is utterly ridiculous - and you know that perfectly well.

Dual use for bubonic plague cultures? OK then Mick go back to your wikipeda source and find out:

A) Who, and I mean by that, what US "Government" Department, dispatched it

B) Who, and by that I mean what Iraqi Institution received it

I think that you will find out the answer to A is CDC and the answer to B is a medical research centre. Now while you are at it go back to the link that you supplied and read the bit about agents that are allowed to be manufactured, grown and stored for research purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 02:12 AM

UN weapons inspectors report to the UN Security Council has come out with the facts relating to the attack on the 21st August:

1: The weaponised agent used was Sarin
2: It was delivered by Rockets that had been fired into the area in question (Sorry Akenaton there goes your leak from stored weapons theory)
3: Via forensic examination of the site, the prevailing weather at the time of the attack and determination of the trajectories of the missiles fired, they came from areas controlled by Assad's forces
4: Examination of the projectiles indicated that one had writing in cyrillic script (What was the caption Jom? - From Russia with Love?).

The UN inspectors did complete their work in Syria, the UN, true to form, sent them into Syria to do a non-job, find out if chemical weapons had been used, but make absolutely no attempt to apportion blame for the attack - useless as always.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 02:48 AM

Yes, and the missiles had Russian Cyrillic ciphers on them.
The balance of probabilities has shifted to beyond reasonable doubt.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "From the wealth of technical detail in the report - including on the scale of the attack, the consistency of sample test results from separate laboratories, witness statements, and information on the munitions used and their trajectories - it is abundantly clear that the Syrian regime is the only party that could have been responsible."

US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power used similar language when saying: "The technical details of the UN report make clear that only the regime could have carried out this large-scale chemical weapons attack."

She also pointed out that the 122mm rockets cited in the report were of the type previously associated with government forces and that the quality of the sarin was higher than that used by Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: "When you look at the findings carefully, the quantities of toxic gas used, the complexity of the mixes, the nature, and the trajectory of the carriers, it leaves absolutely no doubt as to the origin of the attack."

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 04:54 AM

"maybe there were WMDs in Iraq, and Bush was right(?)...in which case they got them from us!!" - GfS

Well according to Mayomick, there were definitely WMD in the form of chemical weapons in Iraq - and adopting his wider reading of the CWC there still are WMD in the form of chemical weapons in Iraq - UNMOVIC, the Iraq Survey Group and the OPCW disagree completely with Mayomick's assessment. There again according to Mayomick's assessment of the CWC both you and I and mayomick probably have WMD in the form of chemical weapons under our respective kitchen sinks, or in our garden sheds, oh and let's not forget our toothpaste.

Iraq most certainly did not get any WMD from "us" (I take it the "us" you are referring to is the USA) What they collected by fair means and foul from various countries and suppliers around the world were "dual use" components and precursors bought with a clearly stated peaceful, innocent and perfectly legal purpose that they then redirected and used to make those weapons themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 07:10 AM

I suspect folks on both sides (and in the middle) are busy trying to determine it from the UN information released, and other surveillance information.One such attempt, using the UN information, is on the Human Rights Watch website - which does not tell us for sure who did it, but is worth considering.

Mapping the flight path

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed t
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 07:17 AM

Last guest was cookie-free me:)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 09:23 AM

Don T: "For me, proof should precede action, not follow it."

Atta baby!!!
That way it's harder for those parties to exploit your emotions, just to further their agendas..which just might be questionable in the first place!
As I've said before, on here, just let the TRUTH come out, and let the chips fall where they may!! Everything else should fall into place, AFTER the truth, is known....not 'adjust' the truth to fit what plans were made or policies set..just to accommodate the 'actions' or 'policies'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 11:12 AM

That link contains the word "likely", but I don't see any "definitely".

In fact the article states ""This isn't conclusive, given the limited data available to the UN team, but it is highly suggestive and another piece of the puzzle.""

In other words, they don't KNOW!!

Given that the two targets are 16km apart and that at lest one is at the extreme range of the missile, the missiles could have been fired from the area claimed, or from another area (or areas on), or close to the suggested lines anywhere within the maximum and minimum range of each missile.

Not so certain now?

One or two will profess absolute certainty, because they cannot ever admit to not knowing.

For the rest, let's wait for that all important proof.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 11:21 AM

"""The term chemical weapon is applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves.""

Seems pretty plain that this would preclude the sale of precursors to suspect regimes.

So selling to Iraq or Syria would seem to be illegal under the agreement, for any signatory.

If the US or UK have sold to those countries any precursor, they are in breach.

QED

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 11:25 AM

What would be acceptable as "proof"?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 11:41 AM

Perhaps some facts instead of gueses and suppositions?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 11:54 AM

Beyond reasonable doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 12:03 PM

The Russians say they have evidence which proves the "rebels" were behind the chemical attacks.
Mr Lavrov says that the evidence will be handed the the UN Security Council in due course.

As Don says, nobody yet knows the truth, everyone is looking for validation.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 01:12 PM

Again, evidence is not proof.

Evidence is put forward and subjected to scrutiny to see if it is valid (or, reasonably considered as such). It is then used with other evidence to prove a case - with some pre-defined level of confidence.
A statements alone is not evidence, no matter where they come from, Russia, USA, France, Syria, Rebels, or elsewhere. When they make statements, one should ask, where is your evidence to back that statement up? Producing evidence long after a statement is made frequently fuels suspicion, as it did with the USA and likely does with others - yes, even Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 02:15 PM

""And, I hear the voice of youth cry, what is proof (truth)""

Sorry, an odd take on ann old Johnny cash song:

Regardless, what should be the standard of proof? I suspect we all differ, and it can vary depending on who your favourite team is:)

From the free online legal dictionary:

Clear and Convincing Proof

A standard applied by a jury or by a judge in a nonjury trial to measure the probability of the truthfulness of particular facts alleged during a civil lawsuit.

Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial is more highly probable to be true than not and the jury or judge has a firm belief or conviction in it. A greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions, preponderance of the evidence, which requires that the facts more likely than not prove the issue for which they are asserted.

The standard of clear and convincing proof—also known as "clear and convincing evidence"; "clear, convincing, and satisfactory"; "clear, cognizant, and convincing"; and "clear, unequivocal, satisfactory, and convincing"—is applied only in particular cases, primarily those involving an equitable remedy, such as reformation of a deed or contract for mistake.


Reasonable Doubt

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 03:45 PM

On the map, the trajectories intersect within the base area of the Republican Guard.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 18 Sep 13 - 06:30 PM

Well I guess that settles it, Russia says it was the rebels, not Assad, who used chemical weapons based on evidence provided by the Assad regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 01:29 AM

And the "evidence" that Assad says he has that it was the rebels/terrorists who fired the Sarin filled rockets was handed over to the Russians - Why? Why not just give this "evidence" to the UN weapons Inspectors while they were in Damascus?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 02:54 AM

Don T, you wanted to see George Zimmerman strung up on much flimsier evidence than this.
Why the double standard?
Discount for multiple massacre?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 06:19 AM

""Regardless, what should be the standard of proof? I suspect we all differ, and it can vary depending on who your favourite team is:)""

In a matter where the end result is likely to be the deployment of bombs which will certainly kill numbers of innocents, much as some of our warmongers would like to deny it, I would suggest that we need to know for certain who it is that we should be bombing.

I note with some degree of despair that said war lovers have ignored the fact that establishing a bearing for a missile does not prove the point of origin.

As I said, there were two separate missiles and each could have been fired from any point along those bearings which lies within their maximum and minimum range from the target.

So, if they were fired separately, the conclusion that they must have come from that area is not justified by the evidence.

More is needed than just the bearing.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 06:26 AM

For the absolute final time Keith A**hole of Hertford, I am replying to your stupid and irrelevant attempt to divert from the matter under discussion.

Neither I nor anybody else suggested your filthy lie that Zimmerman should be "strung up".

I believed, and I still do believe, that his trial was a racially motivated farce, and that evidence was witheld which would have convicted him.

No more to say on that subject, and no more to say to you in the future so don't bother trying.

Ever time I communicate with you, I feel like I need to take a shower afterward.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 07:05 AM

Don...That is disgraceful conduct.
If Keith or I applied these conditions to our participation here we would spend our lives in the shower!

Why don't you calm down and discuss the issue....if something comes up which you don't think is relevant, just ignore it, or express your feelings without making personal comments.

Keith and I disagree on this issue, but I find it valuable to listen to the points he makes...sometimes he has shown me where I have got things wrong, and perhaps what I write has served a useful purpose to Keith?

Surely that's what this section of our OL community is all about?

Just calm down, nothing we say will change anything, there is no need to make enemies......Quoting Ian is always a bad idea. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 07:45 AM

and perhaps what I write has served a useful purpose to Keith?

Yes, often.
You were certainly right about how the Arab Spring would end up.
I was wrong about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 09:12 AM

"I note with some degree of despair that said war lovers have ignored the fact that establishing a bearing for a missile does not prove the point of origin.

As I said, there were two separate missiles and each could have been fired from any point along those bearings which lies within their maximum and minimum range from the target.

So, if they were fired separately, the conclusion that they must have come from that area is not justified by the evidence.

More is needed than just the bearing." - >b>Don T

I would agree wholeheartedly if that indeed was the case - i.e. if all they had to go on was a line of bearing. But that was not the case was it Don?

(A)They (UN Inspectors) knew:

1: Type of Rocket
2: Range
3: Angle of impact
4: Trajectory of missile
5: Line of bearing

Now couple that to

(B) What the US knows from their intelligence satellite images

1: Who was firing on the 21st August
2: Where those firing positions were
3: The times of the various bombardments
4: The communications traffic within units of the Syrian Army before, during, and after the attack

Now combine both - we all know the weapon used was Sarin and we know that at least one of the missiles fired was Russian in origin. Eye witnesses on the ground can confirm timings and if any coincide with barrages from Assad loyalist positions then you have your proof, beyond what Keith refers to as "reasonable doubt" - which back in the days of capital punishment meant that you would have been hanged

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 12:03 PM

Ake, I think Don T may have had an 'epiphany' about 'proof vs hype', since the Zimmerman trial..(I know, because I've gone around and around with him, about that, too), and I've seen his position change about the chemicals used on civilians, just on this thread. I think that is commendable!! He may be re-thinking some things about that, perhaps on some of the other topics as well.
As this topic unfolds, and either more proof comes out, or is hidden, may have an effect on others, who may just hold a 'partisan line', solely on the fact, that it was just a commonly held 'partisan line'.
As ANYONE who has followed my posts knows, I've been blasting partisan politics, when it comes to changing facts, and playing on people's emotions, steering them away from either the truth, or proof, of their positions...and what people are seeing because of the way this topic was dealt with, by the politicians and press, might just be a MAJOR breakthrough!! As I've said before, the 'peace' and/or protest movement of the 60's era, have been co-opted by the Democratic party, and they've been PRETENDING to champion 'liberal causes' for several decades, when in fact, the two parties have been playing off each other, while managing to push through policies and agendas, that have been favoring a system, that neither party, and the citizens would be in favor of, if it weren't for the smoke and mirrors, that's been purposely created, to keep people in the dark, and blaming 'the other party'!!!!.....Then they 'conscript' normally really decent people to adopt the most outlandish notions, get them emotionally involved, create divisions and then operate in the shadows and 'grey areas', deceiving BOTH sides!!!...disappointing BOTH sides, of the 'common folk', with it!!!...and those same 'decent folks', evolved into the 'parrots', making excuses on behalf of the very people who were willfully deceiving them!!..BOTH sides..BOTH parties....BOTH becoming neither true 'Conservatives', NOR 'Liberals'!!...yet thinking that they were/are!!!......(hence my oft repeated usage of the term, 'so-called', as in 'so-called liberals').
I think Don's change of position, if you will, is 'pointing the way', not just for this subject, but for a list of others, as well...(which I'd LOVE to point out here, but it would lead to a major thread drift, I'm sure.

His quote, "For me, proof should precede action, not follow it", should be a motto to live by, for all those enveloped into 'partisanship politics'....then we'd see their numbers plummeting!!!

As it is now, (and as aforementioned by moi), is that the Democrats are starting to feel betrayed, or alarmed about Obama in his second term, just the same way Republicans were starting to feel about Bush, in his second term!!....and as songwriters, and performers, that had their roots in the 60's, protesting the policies of BOTH sides, when nobody was listening, it's time to remember who and what you are!!!!..and that your greatest tool, is the one you tune up, after you get your head clear!!!

Regards and Cheers!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed (
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 03:22 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 03:30 PM

What pizzles me is the accounts of the amount of chemical wepons Assad accumulated. What did he plan to do with 'em all? He hardly wanted to set up a chemical weapons museam. He surely knew thei use goes against international law. Beats me!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Sep 13 - 11:14 PM

Sorta like all those nuclear weapons museums, huh?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 01:55 AM

"the amount of chemical weapons Assad accumulated. What did he plan to do with 'em all?" - Ed T

I know this runs counter to what most believe on this forum but most of the larger "Arab" countries in the region got their weaponry from the Soviet Union - Jordan and Saudi Arabia being the exceptions.

With Soviet weaponry came Soviet tactics and military thinking and the Soviets opted to retain Chemical and Biological weapons after the Second World War.

Chemical and Biological agents have a shelf life - they go off, so you have to constantly renew your stock of agents and amounts just build up if you do not have the facilities to safely dispose of them. The USA have such facilities and that is why the USA has become the repository for thousands of tons of this stuff as it awaits destruction.

Another facet of the region that differs from the west is that the armed forces in these countries main purpose is not to protect the country from foreign aggression but to protect the Government in power, they are used as a tool of repression.

Bashar Al-Assad's plans for those weapons were exactly the same as those of his father and the same as Saddam Hussein, a means of terrorizing your own population, a means of deterring your enemies and/or threatening your neighbours.

The threat of using chemical weapons against say NATO forces does not work as all their equipment and all their soldiers are protected against such weapons and they are all well practiced in operating in a chemical environment. No-one in their right mind would threaten NATO with a chemical attack because NATO's automatic response to such an attack is to use tactical nuclear weapons. UK unilaterally abandoned chemical weapons in 1956, the USA did the same about 9/10 years later.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 02:21 AM

What a sorry bunch
Insanitary, who has been insisting on the possibility of Assad's innocence in the use of chemical weapons.
Face Ache, who has been arguing that it is nuffin' to do with us because "Syria or any of the 'Arab Spring' protestors have no interest in” the good ol' British take on democracy.
And Keith, who has insited as far back as forever that everything Britain does is OK with him and to criticize trade with terrorist and despotic states is "aniti-British" – it doesn't matter anyway as, "everybody is doing it", so why pick on poor old Britain?"
Good to be back among those who know what's and who all have their hearts set at righting the world's wrongs!
Jim Carroll

From the Times over the last couple of days.

"NO DOUBTS, BUT ASSAD CAN CARRY ON KILLING
Anthony Loyd
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 Britain's parliamentary debate on 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 diploiiiatic table, though at the expense of Syrian civilians.
President Assad's survival has been guaranteed, for the while at least, and an 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-Iinked 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."

GASSING OF SYRIAN CIVILIAN
Syria
Will Pavia New York
Gruesome new evidence of a chemical weapons attack in Syria proved that the 1,400 civilians it killed were victims of a war crime, the UN Secretary- General Ban Ki Moon said yesterday.
UN inspectors reported "clear and convincing" evidence of a large-scale rocket attack releasing sarin gas on suburbs in Damascus last month, the incident that almost triggered punitive military strikes from the US.
The keenly awaited report stopped short of blaming President Assad in per¬son for the gassing. However, France, Britain and the US said it left no doubt that his regime was responsible. Russia, which has so far blamed the Syrian rebels for the outrage, gave no immedi¬ate response.
The report — and Mr Ban's impassioned plea for the UN Security Council to impose "consequences" on the Assad regime if it fails to disarm its chemical arsenal — could change the dynamics of a crucial 72 hours of diplomacy in New York.

And Britain's stance at the time of the rejection of the proposal to intervene
"Are we still going to feel big and important? Will our exports be affected?"
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/08/there-are-too-many-bodies-buried-britains-moral-high-ground

Britain's long-term trade in chemical components to Syria
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415081/Britain-sent-poison-chemicals-Assad-Proof-UK-delivered-Sarin-agent-Syrian-regime

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 03:01 AM

What a sorry bunch
Insanitary, who has been insisting on the possibility of Assad's innocence in the use of chemical weapons.
Face Ache, who has been arguing that it is nuffin' to do with us

Why single out those two?
What about Little Hawk and your old mates Don T, Stringsinger, Greg, .......

It is just you and me who think something should be done to discourage further use of gas.
Obviously, being sane, I don't actually demand that our forces should march in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 03:04 AM

Jim Carroll: "From the Times over the last couple of days.

"NO DOUBTS, BUT ASSAD CAN CARRY ON KILLING
Anthony Loyd
Commentary......."

Let's look at this again, OK?

Last line: "Commentary"

Yes, an impassioned account, based on a common assumption, with no facts to back it up...same as the other one. Look, I'm not trying to play down the tragedy, nor minimize cause of the deaths, nor am I less than sympathetic, to the families...it's ALL fucked..OK?

We just don't know, who, for sure, did it. ..and 'funding' can provide delivery systems, to anyone with the inclination to do it, for whatever agenda....be it foreign or domestic...get over it!

THEN when they are TRULY found out, THEN give them hell deluxe!

Have you ever noticed that when 'terrorist groups' do something like that, they ALWAYS take the 'credit', and 'claim responsibility' and they announce that it was them??

That was conspicuously missing this time.....
I'm open for ALL possibilities!!!
I hope THINKING things through is not something you see as an unsanitary act!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 03:04 AM

Jim, your Daily Mail piece is long out of date.
Since September 7th, Vince Cable rubbished all those claims and the story is dead.
Except in your fevered brain obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:14 AM

"Since September 7th, Vince Cable rubbished all those claims and the story is dead."
If you'd bothered your arse reading the link (nothing changes) you might have noticed that it carries today's date and contains the information that Britain has been selling the wherewithal to manufacture chemical weapons for six years to dictator who is known to have been killing and torturing his people for over a decade - that sort of information is never out of date - it is the arming of a war criminal with chemical weapons.
I have differences with many on this thread but you are the only bunch of twats who fit the description I have given
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:21 AM

If you bothered your arse to read your own, out of date, discredied sources, you would have seen this printed at the head of it.

"PUBLISHED: 22:10, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 15:35, 8 September 2013"

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:29 AM

Final sentence of Jim's old Daily Mail piece.
"Last night a BIS spokesman said: 'The five licences were granted to two UK exporters. We cannot publish their names for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The end users were two Syrian commercial companies.
'The quantities of sodium fluoride involved were commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons programme. This remains the case.'

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 05:43 AM

The updte was the fact that sales of the saran chemical have been going on for six years, the last sale was de-licensed - the earlier ones took plave therefore the recent gas attack was almosst certainly carried out using BRITISH SUPPLIED COMPONENTS
The fact that these components can be used in the manufacure of toothpase is totally irrelevant - it was sold to country with a long record of human rights abuses and which now will be possibly indited for war crimes - making Britain a full and knowing accomplice in those crimes.
If you are going to continue defending implication in War Crimes - make a better job of it - you claim to be a aptriot - TRY HARDER You Pratt
Jim Carroll
FROM THIS MORNINGS TIMES

WE WOULD RATHER BE GASSED THAN STARVED, SAYS DOCTOR
Syria
Tom Coghlan, Roger Boyes
Thousands of Syrians trapped in the city of Homs for 500 days without power or food supplies are being starved out by the Assad regime, a trapped doctor said yesterday.
"Doctor M" told The Times that being gassed to death would be a more preferable end than the slow misery being inflicted on the city in what has been compared to the siege of Stalingrad.
"Sick people here do not die due to [lack of] medical treatment but because of hunger and severe malnutrition, unhealed wounds, severe lack of food and absence of basic human necessi¬ties," he said via a Skype connection.
The doctor, who declined to be identi¬fied for his own safety, added: "All nego¬tiations with the regime failed to give any corridor to get the families out. We are trying to bring out the injured. We have 3,000 people and 1,000 are in¬jured, many women and children."
Details of the siege of Homs have emerged as the Alawite regime under President Assad appears to be winning its two-year war against rebel fighters and cementing its hold on power thanks to the Russian-proposed chemi¬cal weapons decommissioning plan. Alawites are an offshoot of the Shia branch of Islam.
The intensity of fighting around the city indicates the strategic importance of the town. Once the Government re¬takes control of Homs, it will control an arc of territory from the Jordanian border up to the Mediterranean coast.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 05:58 AM

You forgot to colour it all in Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 06:13 AM

It wasn't for your benefit Keith - others have no trouble reading words with more than three letters
I await with anticipation your defence of the British sales of chemical components essential to the manufacture of chemical weapons recently used on the people of Syria - you appear to be left only with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv-dP4sdWls
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 06:39 AM

I suspect most of the nuke stockpiles was from the cold war, when the USA (and some of its allies) and Russia (with china) feared they would be nuked by the other- a belief that having more of them deterred the other. This does not seem st all to be of a similar situation as with Assad. It still puzzles me as to the purpose of having that large a volume- that Assads people seem to have said it would take a year or more to get rid of such large stockpiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 07:58 AM

There is no evidenvce as to where the chemical weapons came from, though we do know that the chemical sales took place at the time Syria was establishing its Chemical weapons stockpiles - it's covered in one of the earlier links
The bastard should never have been sold such material FOR WHATEVER CLAIMED PURPOSE and anybody having done so has now implicated the countries concerned in human rights abuses and possibly indictable war crimes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 08:07 AM

Where did Assad get all the rest of his weapons from?
Russia and China.
I am sure that they were happy to supply precursors too and, unlike UK, without checking on their end use.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 08:16 AM

Special Forces from US and UK must have been on the ground from an early stage, who must be closely involved with the action. Not a high level of expertise to produce Sarin so could have been produced by either side. But if only small amounts have been used might indicate an agent provocateur.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 09:00 AM

"Not a high level of expertise to produce Sarin so could have been produced by either side."

From Reuters:

"Mr Sellstrom confirmed that the quality of the sarin was superior both to that used in the Tokyo subway but also to that used by Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war," he told reporters.

"This does not point to a cottage industry chemical," said Lyall Grant, taking a swipe at earlier comments by Churkin. Churkin said in July that a Moscow analysis found "cottage industry" quality sarin gas was used in an alleged March 19 attack, which he blamed on the rebels."

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 09:24 AM

GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 08:16 AM

Incident 1: Tokyo subway attack at the height of the Tokyo rush hour where five separate trains were attacked some extremely well educated and intelligent "nutters" who manufactured their own Sarin managed to kill 13 people

Incident 2: The attacks in Damascus on the 21st August 2013 killed 1429

Incident 3: In Iraq Saddam Hussein killed over 5,000 in one single attack in 1988

The difference? In Tokyo the agent was home made, in Syria and in Iraq the agent was professionally manufactured, weaponised and delivered by a dedicated means purposely designed to cause the maximum amount of death and incapacity.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 09:32 AM

By the way unnamed Guest:

"Special Forces from US and UK must have been on the ground from an early stage, who must be closely involved with the action."

Why must US or UK Special Forces have been on the ground in Syria?
Why from an early stage?
Why must they have been closely involved in the action?

Utterly ridiculous - absolutely no requirement whatsoever for them to be there.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 10:41 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 11:13 AM

"Where did Assad get all the rest of his weapons from?
Russia and China."
Assad has being purchasing the wherewithal to make chemical weapons from britain for six years - they started to purchase it at the time they began to establish their chemical industry - a documented fact.
They now have a massive arsenal of chemical weapons which will tale a decade to dismantle - they say it will tae a decade to decommission it a a horrendous cost and have suggested that the West pays the billion or so it will cost to remove.
Your feeble little arm-wavings about China and Russia only goes to show that the British Government has made Britain as culpable as the rest of them in regard to Chemical use against civilians - as you indicate - they are all a shower of mercenary bastards - you couldn't sqeeze acredit card between their morals THEY HAVE ALL ACTED AS ASSAD'S ARMOURERS
It was pointed out by a defecting Syrian official last year that Assad placed great value on his relationship with Britain - he advised that this should be used as leverage to stp the Homs Killing - NOTHING WHATEVER HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS RESPECT - ON THE CONTRARY, DESPITE HOMS AND DESPITE THE CHEMICAL ATTACKS BRITAIN - CAMERON AND AT LEAST TWO OF HIS MINISTERS HAVE STATED PUBLICLY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT "WHATEVER THE OUTCOME BRITISH TRADE WITH SYRIA MUST NOT BE AFFECTED"

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 11:36 AM

DESPITE HOMS AND DESPITE THE CHEMICAL ATTACKS BRITAIN - CAMERON AND AT LEAST TWO OF HIS MINISTERS HAVE STATED PUBLICLY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT "WHATEVER THE OUTCOME BRITISH TRADE WITH SYRIA MUST NOT BE AFFECTED"

Complete fabrication.
A made up quote that no-one ever said.
A desperate lie from a floundering fart.

Nice colours though Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 12:56 PM

"Complete fabrication"
"Are we still going to feel big and important? Will our exports be affected?"
David Cameron - you have the link to the New Statesman article above
Similar statements have been made by Cable - who has admitted in the past that they trade with states that have abominable human rights records - and a further statement by yet another minister is also linked in connection with trying to explain away the sale of sarin producing chemicals - to be reasonably exact "Britain's trade with Syria must not be affected".
Do you get turned on by defending war crimes and human rights atrocities - do you stand in front of a mirror while you do it?
Perv!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 01:21 PM

Sorry - not exactly the same - here Cameron has added the need for Britain to "feel big and important" - even more disgusting!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 01:31 PM

Those are not the words of Cameron or any other politician.
None of them have said that or anything like it.
Those are the words of Laurie Penny, who writes for NS on pop culture, politics and feminism.

Read your own shit Jim dear and stop wasting everyone's time.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 01:40 PM

yet another minister is also linked in connection with trying to explain away the sale of sarin producing chemicals - to be reasonably exact "Britain's trade with Syria must not be affected

Bollocks.
Another Jim Carrol fabrication - to be completely exact.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 03:58 PM

bobad: ""Mr Sellstrom confirmed that the quality of the sarin was superior both to that used in the Tokyo subway but also to that used by Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war," he told reporters."

Well, there are TWO more possibilities...'Iraq-Iran'. I already posted about the high ranking officer with the Iraqis, who said he oversaw the transfer...and then there is Iran....and of course, others, as well.
I don't think it is a foregone conclusion, as of yet..not matter what the speculation is, or who is doing the 'speculations'...bottom line, somebody is playing it close to the chest....and that could be ANYBODY!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 03:58 PM

You have been given the links along with the quotes - you obviously have no intention of attempting to defending he murderously predatory behaviour of Britain's arms industry in its continual dealings with Assad and others like him
Would lie to say David Irving would be proud of you, bu you can't even be bothered to make an effort - just denial - any moron.....
The only reason it is worthwhile even to keep posting as far as you are concerned is to allow you to dg yourself even deeper into the slime-pit which you apparently are happy to call home
Sweet dreams
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:08 PM

A little bedtime reading to pass away the waking hours - sorry it's so lomng and "boring" but it's an indication of just how long Britain has been selling chemical weapons to monsters, wnd to which particular breed of them
Jim Carroll

BRITAIN'S CHEMICAL BAZAAR: THE UK SELLS THE COMPONENTS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS TO SOME OF THE WORST REGIMES IN THE WORLD

9 June 2002
On August 20 1998 American missiles blew the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant on the outskirts of the Sudanese capital Khartoum to bits. The Clinton administration claimed the factory was making VX nerve gas - a lethal chemical weapon banned under international law.
Britain, in the form of Labour's then defense secretary George Robertson, supported the strikes, claiming there was 'compelling evidence' that the factory was producing chemical weapons.
Yet a Sunday Herald investigation has revealed that Britain is now selling chemicals to Sudan - and others among the most dangerous regimes on earth - which give them the capability to make weapons of mass destruction.
Among the countries to which Britain is selling chemical warfare technology is Iran - a regime labeled as part of the 'axis of evil' by President Bush.
Others include Libya - long seen by the west as a state sponsor of international terrorism; Israel - which is involved in one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent times; and Taiwan - a nation which has been on the brink of war with China for decades.
The sale of these chemicals is strictly controlled by the international chemical weapons convention, to which Britain is a signatory, and any sale to nations that may use them as a weapon of war is illegal. Libya, Israel and Taiwan are not signatories to the convention. Nor are Thailand and Syria, yet Britain sells them the technology.
Another customer is Jordan. Like Sudan, Jordan has signed the convention but not ratified it, making the treaty effectively meaningless for both governments. The other nations to which the UK deals chemicals are Cyprus, India, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen.
The products that Britain is selling to these nations are known as toxic chemical precursors (TCPs), a variety of chemicals which when combined with other compounds create weapons such as sarin - the nerve agent used in the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo cult's attacks on the Tokyo subway which killed 12 people - and mustard gas. These TCPs are known to chemists as dual-use chemicals. This means they can be used in harmless industries like agriculture or turned into weapons of mass destruction when mixed with other chemicals.
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which controls strategic exports, including all forms of armaments and components of chemical weapons, admitted that Britain was selling TCPs to 26 countries. It also admitted that there was no way they could be sure that the chemicals would not be used to manufacture weapons once they arrived at their destination.
Holland considers the sale of TCPs to countries like Sudan so dangerous that it has banned the trade in dual-use chemicals for both civilian and military application. Sudan has tried to buy TCPs from Dutch companies for use in fertilizer, but the Dutch ministry of economic affairs outlawed the transactions, saying it had 'indications that [the chemicals] might be used for other ends', including the manufacture of nerve gas.
A DTI spokesman said the chemicals were sold overseas 'under the belief' that they would be used 'benignly' for agricultural purposes or for use in detergents. 'If there are concerns about the end use of such chemicals we will closely look at export applications under the consolidated EU national arms export licensing criteria,' a spokesman said.
He added that the risk of recipient countries diverting TCPs into chemical weapons was closely assessed. The DTI said the main assurance it relied upon to trust foreign governments that they would not use TCPs bought from Britain for chemical weapons programs was 'an end user undertaking' -- amounting to a promise that the chemicals would be used for non-military means.
'We aim to minimize risk,' the DTI spokesman added, 'but obviously it is very difficult to say what happens to these things once they get to their final destination. It is impossible to clamp down 100%. It is impossible to know what happens to them in the stages that come after they leave Britain.'
Labour MP Ann Clywd, who sits on the commons international development select committee, the backbench human rights committee and the quadripartite committee on arms exports, said she will now press the Prime Minister in parliament to explain the government's policy on sales of chemical weapon technology to 'dubious regimes'.
'If chemicals are being sold to such regimes, questions need to be asked,' she said. 'The DTI's claims that it monitors such exports do not stand up to scrutiny. It is a myth that this takes place. Frankly, we have no idea what happens with these chemicals when they get to their final destination.
'If we are going to sell these things we have to be 100% sure what happens to them when they are sold. If we can't be sure, we shouldn't sell them.'
Clywd said the revelations about TCP sales meant that parliament should be given the power of scrutiny over arms exports. Members of the quadripartite committee on arms exports have recommended that MPs be allowed to scrutinize such sales, but the government has refused to grant these powers in the arms export bill now going through parliament.
'Without prior scrutiny there is no accountability,' she said. 'What we have now is a system operating on a very confused and skewed morality. The US gives elected representatives the power of scrutiny and Britain should move immediately in that direction.
'We don't know if we are aiding and abetting supposedly dodgy regimes in the development of weapons of mass destruction. At the moment that suspicion hangs over these sales. There are a lot of anomalies in our foreign policy and I, like many members of the public, am confused over what our government is doing.'
Professor Julian Perry Robinson, a chemist at the Science and Technology Policy Research Unit at Sussex University, said TCPs were the main constituent of chemical weapons. Robinson, who helped draft the chemical weapons convention and who is a member of its UK National Authority Advisory Committee, said: 'These findings ought to worry people, especially given the rather weak assurances from the DTI'.
Robinson explained that one TCP, thiodiglycol, could be turned into mustard gas by adding hydrochloric acid or ordinary household drain cleaner. He described another TCP, dimethyl methylphosphonate, as 'the perfect dual-use chemical'. By itself it can be used as a flame retardant, but if mixed with other chemicals it becomes the main ingredient of sarin nerve gas.
'Once you have your hands on dimethyl methylphosphonate you are well on the way to making sarin,' he said. 'Every single chemical warfare agent can be made from toxic chemical precursors.
'We need mechanisms in place to ensure these chemicals are not misused. Currently we rely on end-user certificates from the country concerned . But it is obvious that these countries can lie. It is impossible to say whether the current safeguards work.'
Robinson backed Clywd's call for parliament's right to scrutinize such export licenses, saying: 'We need more transparency in the present system'. He said the morality of the British government was now in question, given its rhetoric against repressive regimes, its claims to be running an ethical foreign policy and its support of the US in bombing Sudan's alleged chemical weapons compound. 'The ethics are twisted,' Robinson added. 'In the end, it seems that capital counts.'
Dr Mark Phythian, principal lecturer in politics at Wolverhampton University and the author of The Politics Of British Arms Sales, said: 'Such chemicals are sold with political approval. Any government would be hard pushed to say it didn't know the consequences of such sales, although it is hard to make sense of that policy in the present climate of concerns about terrorism and war.
'It appears this is an extension of our policy on the sale of conventional weapons. That is a policy of sustaining the UK's industrial base, protecting jobs in the weapons industry and maintaining our image as a global player in arms. The government's desire to maximize trade seems to be at odds with its rhetoric about security. History would suggest that to err on the side of trade over security is a very short-sighted policy.'
Alastair Hay, a professor of environmental toxicology at Leeds University's school of medicine and the biochemist who carried out the forensic tests that proved Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against Kurds in northern Iraq, said: 'It is a matter of real concern that we are selling these chemicals to countries which are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
'These nations are looking towards Britain as a supplier because they know we have a substantial pharmaceutical industry, there is a guaranteed supply, and the goods will be cheap and of good quality.
'Many TCPs have no other purpose other than the making of chemical weapons. It has to be considered as a real possibility that a country is buying these chemicals for allegedly innocuous reasons but planning to use them for lethal purposes.'
Richard Bingley, of Campaign Against the Arms Trade, said the sale of TCPs made it imperative that the end use of the chemicals be closely monitored to ensure they were not being used to create weapons of mass destruction. 'We don't even know that, if we sell these chemicals to a seemingly decent regime, they won't sell them on to a repressive and dangerous nation,' he said. 'Yet we've taken that a step further by actually selling these chemicals direct to repressive systems and nations which one day could use the chemical capabilities we gave them against Britain or our allies.'
Neil Mackay
Published in the Sunday Herald (Scotland) © 2002 SMG Sunday Newspapers Ltd

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0505.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 05:02 PM

Jim, here is your New Statesman link.
You and anyone else can see that Laurie Penny, "pop culture, politics and feminism" is speaking for herself and not quoting anyone.
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/08/there-are-too-many-bodies-buried-britains-moral-high-ground

yet another minister is also linked in connection with trying to explain away the sale of sarin producing chemicals - to be reasonably exact "Britain's trade with Syria must not be affected

If that is not made up, produce some evidence or stop wasting everyone's time you silly obsessed buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 12:54 PM

Keith
It was never more than a summing up of the government position.
You have had Cameron, Cable (and another minister - in connection with his excuse for selling chemical weapons - go look them up, you obviously haven't rqd them
Fact - the government places trade above human rights,
Fact - The government has traded with terrorist states for decades - Sri Lanka, Libya, Syria.... it even launched an arms fair when the Arab Spring demonstrations were into their first month.
You have been given this information over and over again - you attempted to claim the chemicals which we now to assisted Syria to build up its chemical weapons supply (sold to them for 6 years) as "harmless".
You made the same claim on another thread when you had been given a link to scientific journal describing these as "the main constituent of sarin weapons.
You have refused to respond to one single factual report you have been given.
Me obsessedd - yeah, right.   
Fact - the British Government has dragged the name of Britain into the shit by consistently selling weapons to some of the worst regimes on this planet - It is among the top five Countries in the world to do so.
Unless you have not read a single newspaper or journal, watched any television report or listened to them on the radio or read any of the links put in front of you (more than likely) you are well aware of this yet you are still describing revulsion at this policy as "obsessive", "anti-British", "thread-drift" or irrelevant to a discussion on Syria - are you really out of your mind?
In the past he value of even bothering with you and your rantings has been to allow you to expose yourself for the fanatical pratt you are; now it has become the mdern equivalent of going along to Moorfields to goad the patients
The fact that you seem to have not an iota of shame in your behaviour is pitiful - go away - you shame yourself and are an embarrassment.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 01:23 PM

Despite the horrific behaviour of the Assad regime, and despite it being suggested by a defecting high official as long ago as during the Homs massacres that Britain should use the value Assad places on his relations with Britain the government was insisting that normal trading relations should continue with the regime.
As the article accurately points out, Britain places a higher value on Syria/British trade than it does on the lives of those being massacred.
Jim Carroll
   
"2nd September 2013
Hammond: Normal trade with Syria must continue
Normal trade with Syria must be allowed to continue, the Defence Secretary suggested today, as he defended the licensing of chemical exports to Syria.
Philip Hammond told MPs that chemical licenses sold to the Syrian regime before they were subsequently revoked in June 2012 were intended for use in "metal finishing activities"."

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-02/mps-to-question-why-uk-government-allowed-syria-chemical-deal-vince-cable/

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 07:36 PM

"Did those here who oppose Obama's proposed intervention, object to him promising to act against the use of chemical weapons at the time?
Did they post here describing it as warmongering?
Stringsinger?"

Keith, no one here condones the use of chemical weapons. The issue is that the way to achieve success is not through warmongering but diplomacy. This is Obama's best action.

Now the question here is often referred to as a "conspiracy theory", a term that originated with the CIA to discredit anyone who questions the validity of some news reports.
Usually, the conspiracy theorist is not dogmatic as suggested but is merely asking for a reasonable conclusion that makes more sense such as why did Number 7 Tower come down on 911.

Is it possible that the CIA did plant sarin to achieve a political objective? Given the history of the CIA and MI6 it is a reasonable question to be asked.

" - 08:16 AM

"Incident 1: Tokyo subway attack at the height of the Tokyo rush hour where five separate trains were attacked some extremely well educated and intelligent "nutters" who manufactured their own Sarin managed to kill 13 people."

This may or may not be associated with attacks on Damascus.

"Incident 2: The attacks in Damascus on the 21st August 2013 killed 1429"

This figure has never been established to be accurate. Some say more, some less.

"Incident 3: In Iraq Saddam Hussein killed over 5,000 in one single attack in 1988"

Yes but was it sarin gas? Again a different incident and not related necessarily.

"The difference? In Tokyo the agent was home made, in Syria and in Iraq the agent was professionally manufactured, weaponised and delivered by a dedicated means purposely designed to cause the maximum amount of death and incapacity."

And what major countries in the world would be capable of this manufacture and its delivery? And how do you know which one?

To announce such an authoritative description and analysis would mean that the person in-the-know would have to be connected to an undercover agency such as the CIA otherwise this is just conjecture not based on known evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 01:45 AM

We do not supply weapons or any war materials.
The ordinary people of Syria trying to survive and make a living are not helped by stopping all trade.

Save your anger for those who provide the means of killing.

String, why does the exact death toll in Damascus matter?
It was a devastating attack resulting in many deaths including kids.
In Iraq we do know that sarin and mustard were used.
Why not check these things before pontificating?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 03:36 AM

Keith, no one here condones the use of chemical weapons. The issue is that the way to achieve success is not through warmongering but diplomacy. This is Obama's best action.

I have no enthusiasm for a military strike, but as a lesser of evils it is better than the use of chemical weapons becoming acceptable.
I am prepared to trust the judgement of Obama and Hollande over that of the Tea Party and UKIP.
Do you really believe he would not give diplomacy another go if there was any hope of it achieving anything?

You all should have objected when he gave it as a red line, not waited for it to be crossed.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 03:43 AM

You have the detailed facts of chemicals essential for the making of Sarin weapons sold by Britain over six years - during the time that Assad began to establish his massive chemical weapons arsenal - of course, we can accept his word that he "only used it to produce to produce toothpaste, and, just like the Israeli regime, his word is his bond.
You also have the fact that Britain sold armoured cars, gas and other items of riot control gear to Assad at the beginning of the protests - you even gave your blessing on that one, suggesting that those sales should continue.
During your 'Homs Horror' weeping and wailing you identified the small arms ammunition which was licensed and sold by Britain to a customer in Syria as not just acceptable, but harmless ("only a few sniper rifles" were your exact words) - at a time when Assad's snipers were cutting down men, women and children on the streets of Homs.
It doesn't particularly matter whether your and your Chocolate Soldier friend were right in your estimation of exactly what was sold, as far as you were concerned they were sold and you had no problems with it.
God only knows what else Britain has sold to this long-known murderer and torturer down the years - we know we have promoted and supplied heavy and light weaponry to some of the most oppressive and undemocratic regimes on this planet and, while is has the active support of people like you, that will continue to be the case.
As the Defence Secretary said, and you have just ignored "Normal trade with Syria must be allowed to continue" - how d'ya like them pretty colours?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 05:42 AM

God only knows what else Britain has sold
Yes, and so does anyone else who wants to know.
It is all open and above board.
A peaceful end use had to be proved.

You have made it very clear once again that you hate Britain.
You use every thread as a platform to attack us.

Britain does not supply war material to Syria, but others do.
Have a go at them for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:24 AM

I do not believe anything unless I see it with my own eyes.
however my local paper The Southern Star which would appear to be independent as regards Jewish/ Arab conflict printed an article that suggested that the Israeli government were spending 778.000, as a propoganda campaign, the money was to be paid to impecunious student,they have to rewrite Iraeli government propoganda in a trendy accessible way and post it as letters to various papers.
Why would a southern irish newspaper be biased against the Israeli state?does anyone know the truth of this suggestion?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:33 AM

I believe it.
Most countries have a budget for presenting themselves in a positive light.
Anti-Israel propaganda is rife.
This seems a harmless way to slightly redress the balance.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 07:13 AM

Britain has and continued to do so until the UN put a ban on it.
You have had the information - you have had the opportunity to disprove it - you choose not to - speaks for itself.
"Have a go at them for a change."
I have and I do - the US is the second greatest arms trader in the world
Israel has sold chemical weapons to Iran
Whatever we might condemn we are answerable only to what our own governments do in our name.
The suggestion that trade boycotts would only harm the Syrian people is a mealy-mouthed excuse to go on trading with human rights abusers - far older than having been used to continuing to trade with the South African apartheid regime following the Sharpville and Soweto massacres.
It is merely an excuse not to use the only influence we have over monsters, yet Britain chooses to profit from them by trade - even to the extent of ignoring long term torture and murder - this is what the British government does in the name of the British people
It has been suggested by a defecting official that this is Assad'd Achilles heel - Britain has ignored it and you have chosen neither to defend or excuse their behaviour - you refuse even to comment on it
To suggest this us "anti British" is to allign the British people with the slimeball activities ofit's politicians, just as to describe criticism of Israel as "Anti Semitic" is to implicate all Jews with Israeli war crimes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 07:23 AM


Britain has and continued to do so until the UN put a ban on it.

UN ban?
What UN ban Jim.
Please give details and explain why it does not apply to China and Russia.

There is an EU ban on supplying war materials.
UK was instrumental in getting it in place.
Good show, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:08 AM

You continue to ignore every point made and hide behind the behavior of others
BRITAIN IS THIRD IN THE LEAGUE OF ARMS SUPPLIERS IN THE WORLD TODAY. RUSSIA, WHO HAS NOW "SHAKEN OFF THE CHAINS OF COMMUNISM", TOOK OVER AS THE LEADING ARMS TRADING NATION. BRITAIN'S CUSTOMERS INCLUDE SOME OF THE MOST UNDEMOCRATIC REGIMES AND OPPRESSIVE REGIMES IN THE WORLD; DESPITE EFFORTS TO REMOVE THOSE REGIMES BRITAIN HAS CONTINUED TO SELL THESE THUGS ARMS AND HAS CONTINUED TO HOLD ARMS FAIRS TO ATTRACT EVEN MORE OF THEM.
TRADE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF BRITISH POLITICS, FAR MORE SO THAN HUMAN LIFE - LIVE WITH IT AS YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT OTHER THAT BLINDLY SUPPORT IT
Selling arms is a despicable trade whoever participates - as a British citizen it outrages ME that it is carried out in my and every other Britons name - you seem happy to accept that, but that's you, isn't it?
Good show. what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:20 AM

I think you should start a thread about the international trade in arms.
You clearly have strong views on that subject, and I am sympathetic to them myself.
This thread is about Syria, who is armed by Russia and China.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:26 AM

From last week'sTimes
Jim Carroll

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: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:30 AM

"This thread is about Syria, who is armed by Russia and China."
Pissw off with your thread drift - this is entirely about arms - including Britain and her chemical weapons components
And stop telling people what and what we shouldn't be discussing when you run out of answers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 11:19 AM

This thread is about Syria, armed by Russia and China, and not about the global arms trade.
You are such a fascist Jim.
By what right do you decide that it has to be yet another thread about how much Jim hates Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 02:32 PM

""Don...That is disgraceful conduct.""

In your opinion Ake, as one wo has expressed some pretty unpleasant opinions!

Given a close acquaintance with the despicable prejudices of the man, from his posts about Northern Ireland, British Pakistanis (or BPs, as he would prefer to dehumanise them), Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular, combined with his syophantic obsession with all things Israeli, and his gung ho attitude to military interference in soveeign states, I think the comment I made was both justified and over lenient.

I stand by what I said.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 02:48 PM

"String, why does the exact death toll in Damascus matter?
It was a devastating attack resulting in many deaths including kids.
In Iraq we do know that sarin and mustard were used.
Why not check these things before pontificating?"

The answer of course is that I don't trust your sources. Who is this "we" that knows so much?

"I think you should start a thread about the international trade in arms."

It's common knowledge that the US and Israel are trading in arms internationally. This is a chief export of both countries.

Who originally armed Assad Sr. before Assad Jr. took over? Why the sudden turn of interest now after both Assads have been committing atrocities for years? Sarin gas is just one of the terrible weapons that have been used in Syria. US drones are equally as harmful used in other countries. The US, India, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia all have nuclear weapons far more capable of lethal destruction of many human lives more than sarin. Why have they decided that these weapons should be kept? If anyone attacks the US with nuclear weapons, there is no defense that makes any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:02 PM

"This thread is about Syria, armed by Russia and China, and not about the global arms trade."
This thread is about whatever any contribution any member of this forum chooses to believe relevant to wwhat is happening in Syria - hardly any of your senile contributions have mentioned the CIA so how ******* dare you tell us to restrict our input to what you have virtually ignored throughout this thread when you are at a loss for a response to facts, you dictatorial little shit.This thread is perfectly within the bounds of discussing a chemical attack by Assad using materials supplied by Britain as well as any other nation who chooses to wallow in the arms trade.
BRITAIN HAS BEEN SELLING CHEMICALS ESSENTIAL FOR MANUFACTURING SARIN WEAPONS FOR SIX YEARS
STOP MANIPULATING THREADS AND ATTEMPTING TO DEPRIVE THE REST OF US OF OUR SAY
Fascist - I couldn't begin to match your behaviour on this forum, you little jackbooter you!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 02:04 AM

Don, I have no prejudices and have never expressed any.
You can accuse but never produce.
I did support Obama's limited action to deter more gassings.
That does not make me gung ho.
Jim wants intervention on the ground!
This is the post you really can not forgive me for Don.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 03:00 AM

"The figures regarding blame in London are suspect, to say the least, given that any cyclist causing a collision and lucky enough to avoid injury"

The figures are accepted as reliable except only by you Don.
No-one else has ever heard of a collision caused by but not involving cyclists.
You claim to personally know of five.
That is because you are a liar and make stories up to make your case.

You tell a ludicrous story of sending a cyclist to hospital with your stick.
You claim he was fined for "furious riding"
Such a charge is extremely rare and always reported on.
The last one in Kent was in 19th Century.
Furious Riding has to involve injury to a pedestrian.
You forgot to make up the injured pedestrian Don.

You foolish, foolish man.
You make a liar of yourself to make a pathetic point on a miniscule Mudcat spat.
Twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 02:13 AM

Jim, since those outdated accusations were made, it is now known that a peaceful end use had to be proved for any import.
Also sodium flouride is a very low value commodity.

String, Assad senior was also armed by Russia, like all the states at war with Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 03:21 AM

String, NYT 1993.
Scientists working with human rights groups said that, using advanced chemical analysis, they had found residues of mustard and nerve gases used against a Kurdish village in northern Iraq in 1988, an action the Iraqi Government continues to deny.

Eric Stover, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, a Boston-based group that investigates human rights violations, and others said at a news briefing here that poison gases do not survive long in the environment and that physical evidence of their use is often gone within weeks. A Search for Byproducts

However, by using advanced analytical techniques that looked for minute byproducts of the chemical weapons in soil, scientists said they were able to find conclusive evidence that the chemicals were used. They said their tests confirmed the use of mustard gas, a blistering agent that burns the skin and mucous membranes, and a nerve gas called sarin, which can cause convulsions and death by suffocation.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 03:40 AM

"im, since those outdated accusations were made, it is now known that a peaceful end use had to be proved for any import."
Absolute nonsense
Britain has been exporting Chemicals for weapons for six years
That fact has been reported throughout the world
Sodium fluoride is an essential component of sarin weapons that is what Britain has sent to Syria - the regime has just gassed its people with sarin and hopefully will be tried and convicted od that war crime
Britain was thier accomplice by selling the shit
How out-of-date can that possibly be?
Make an effort to make your case if you are going to support these atrocities
And stop debasing this forum with your lies - you have my and Don's position on this matter - give your own honestly rather than "Britain is innocent" - she isn't and the world knows that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 03:44 AM

No Jim.
The accusation was made, but it was comprehensively rubbished and the story died weeks ago.
Except in your mad head Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 04:32 AM

No it was not - the report that Britain has been selling sarin chemicals to Syria appeared in the Daily Mail a fewwdays ago - you have it on this tread
What particularly is the line you are peddling
Britain did not sell chemicals to Syria?
Those chemicals are not essential to the production of sarin?
It is ok to sell chemical weapon producing to monsters like Assad
All have been dealt with - all have been established beyond doubt
All have been accepted worldwide
What's your point - are you claining that we should ignore Britain's part in arming the Syrian regime and pretend it was all down to Russia and China - what????
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 05:19 AM

Since September 7th, Vince Cable rubbished all those claims and the story is dead.

Final sentence of Jim's old Daily Mail piece.
7th September.

"Last night a BIS spokesman said: 'The five licences were granted to two UK exporters. We cannot publish their names for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The end users were two Syrian commercial companies.
'The quantities of sodium fluoride involved were commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons programme. This remains the case.'

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 06:31 AM

"Since September 7th, Vince Cable rubbished all those claims and the story is dead."
Vince Cable said the latest sale was for non-military purposes only - we all know tat the Syrians would bend over backwards to make sure that was the case
I assume you shows that Cable "rubbished" the reports - a politician who has consistently admitted selling arms to despots DENIED hat he had sold chemical components.
You are as moronic as Cable thinks we are to suggest this is "proof" of anything for Christr's sake - what king of eejits do you take us for?
Since that first DENIAL the fact that Britain has been selling this shit to Syria for six years, from the time she began developing her massive chemical weapons industry - THIS IS A FULLY ACCEPTED FACT AND HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT - IT IS NEW NEWS AND IS NOT OUT OF DATE

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 07:55 AM

Find a recent report about it then Jim.
There is no story.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:10 AM

And that's it - Vince said he didn't do it - "and Vincent is an honourable man"
No Keith you have last week's "updated" Mail On Line report which says Britain has been selling chemicals to Syria for six years - you find a more recent report than that.
BRITAIN HAS BEEN SELLING SYRIA THE WHEREWITHAL TO MAKE CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOR SIX YEARS - NO news TO YOU OBVIOUSLY, BUT THAT IS THE STORY TO DATE. WE HAVE YET TO LEARN EXACTLY WHAT ELSE BRITAIN HAS SOLD THIS MURDEROUS BASTARD OVER THE DECADES WE HAVE BEEN TRADING WITH HIM - WATCH THIS SPACE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:18 AM

7th September is not last week.
The claims have all been refuted and no-one has been able to refute the refutation so that is it.
There is no story and never was.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:24 AM

"Since that first DENIAL the fact that Britain has been selling this shit to Syria for six years, from the time she began developing her massive chemical weapons industry - THIS IS A FULLY ACCEPTED FACT AND HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT - IT IS NEW NEWS AND IS NOT OUT OF DATE"

Jom you wouldn't recognise a fact if it jumped up and bit you.

Where on earth did you get this fact that Syria only got into chemical weapons six years ago? Or is that just something that you decided to make up?

Under the CWC there is nothing to prevent any country carrying out research and development in the field of chemical research provided that it is for peaceful purposes. There is nothing under the terms of the CWC to prevent countries manufacturing chemical warfare agents and biological cultures in order to carryout research into defensive measures to counter weaponised versions of those agents and cultures

An NGO has published a report detailing the 12 greatest "killers" in terms of weapons in Assad's inventory in Syria - Responsible for killing ~72,000 of the estimated 180,000 killed so far (Iraq over 8 years killed ~150,000 - 78% of those killed by fellow Iraqis) - Of the 12 types of weapon identified TEN of them were supplied by Russia and as for the remaining 2 (one Egyptian and one Chinese) both were copies of Russian systems.

The CWC was created in 1993 and the Syrian Government did not sign it so we know with a high degree of certainty that Syria has possessed chemical weapons since that date.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:46 AM

"Where on earth did you get this fact that Syria only got into chemical
weapons six years ago?"
That is the date given if previous links for the "establishment" of the present stockpiles of chemical weapons 'Colonel Sir' - no argument that they had them before but the present stocks were built up around the time Britain was caught red handed flogging them
Doesn't matter really - we sold them, Assad bought them end of story.
It is on this basis that Assad has suggested that the west pay for the removal of the stuff - "he who hides it, finds it"
Stick to light opera
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:53 AM

Few thought that the Syrian regime's promise to destroy its chemical weapons would be the end of the story. Brigadier-General Zaher al-Saket, a former chemical weapons chief in President Bashar al-Assad's own army, certainly did not.

Brig Gen Saket says he was ordered three times to use chemical weapons against his own people, but could not. He insists that all such orders had to come from the top — President Assad himself — despite insistent denials by the regime that it has never used chemical weapons. He also claims to have his own intelligence that the Syrian president is evading the terms of a Russian-brokered deal to destroy the chemical weapons by transferring some of the stocks to his allies; Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Iran.

Brig Gen Saket spoke to The Sunday Telegraph, his first interview with a Western newspaper, as Mr Assad confirmed for the first time what he, and much of the rest of the world already knew, that the regime has a huge arsenal of chemical weapons, and the delivery systems to go with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:01 AM

Britain caught red-handed NOT flogging them, or any other weapons.
You saying it over and over does not make it true Jim.
There was no basis to the story, and it is dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:36 AM

"You saying it over and over does not make it true Jim."
No, but all the reports that they have does make it true, and your continuing to junk those reports makes you a fanatical moron - Britain has been supplying chemicals that are essential to the manufacture of chemical weapons for at least six years if you, or that nice Mr Cable says it is not so, disprove the evidence that has provoked all the accusations that they have - easy as that
Denials by politicians are more likely to confirm that they have
I totally agree with Bobad's posting -= what the **** is Britain doing dealing with these animals in the first place - they knew what a monster he was - and they still want to continue exporting to Syria whan this is all over?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:41 AM

The claims have all been refuted and no-one has been able to refute the refutation so that is it.
There is no story and never was.

(or have you found a recent report Jim?)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:09 AM

Not refuted - denied - produce your proof that it didn't happen

How ithers see us - from the US

Saturday, September 7, 2013
Britain Sold Nerve Gas Chemicals to Syria
Oh, a little lax security controls there, you think?
Here's the front-page story at tomorrow's Daily Mail, "Britain sent poison gas chemicals to Assad: Proof that the UK delivered Sarin agent to Syrian regime for SIX years":
British companies sold chemicals to Syria that could have been used to produce the deadly nerve agent that killed 1,400 people, The Mail on Sunday can reveal today.
Between July 2004 and May 2010 the Government issued five export licences to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, which is used to make sarin.
The Government last night admitted for the first time that the chemical was delivered to Syria – a clear breach of international protocol on the trade of dangerous substances that has been condemned as 'grossly irresponsible'.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:29 AM

You can make swords or ploughshares out of iron.
Imports to Syria were only allowed if a peaceful and safe end use was proved.
The chemicals were capable of misuse, but were not misused.
Now that has been established, even the Daily Mail has dropped it.

That is why you can find nothing on it since.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:42 AM

And you can show any of this garbage to be fact, can you
"You can make swords or ploughshares out of iron."
Can we assume that you no longer approve of Israel's blockade on essential fertilizer - in my hole we can!!
And Syria is only one of the countries visiting Britain's Arms Shop
"That is why you can find nothing on it since."
Since when - four days ago when it was updated in the Daily Mail - I suggest you look up British local press coverage of it at present.
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: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 11:03 AM

One small point Jom "The Impartial":

Since when did -

"British companies sold chemicals to Syria that could have been used to produce the deadly nerve agent that killed 1,400 people

Translate itself into:

"British companies sold chemicals to Syria that were then used to produce the deadly nerve agent that killed 1,400 people

Personally I see quite a major difference in the statements - can't you? You seem to read one and immediately jump to conclusions without a shred of evidence.

Also:

Since when did -

"Between July 2004 and May 2010 the Government issued five export licences to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, which IS used to make sarin."

Translate itself into:

"Between July 2004 and May 2010 the Government issued five export licences to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, which WAS used to make sarin.

Same thing again.

What else is needed to manufacture Sarin Jom?

EU ban on trade with Syria came into force when Jom? I think that you will find that it came into effect late in May 2013 - so pray tell why shouldn't British companies have traded with Syria during the period July 2004 to May 2010? Assad didn't start slaughtering his fellow citizens with his stockpile of Russian weaponry until March 2011.

Weapon responsible for more deaths in Syria than any other? AK-47, AK-74 made by?? - Yep got it in one Russia, who are still sending them in by the shipload even as we type.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 11:31 AM

1: "Mr Cable has come under fire in recent days over two licences granted in January 2012 for the export of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride to Syria. The licences were revoked in July 2012 after EU sanctions were tightened, and the Business Department has said that none of the chemicals were shipped out."

2: "The House of Commons Committees on Arms Exports Control (CAEC) released a letter from Mr Cable detailing five further licences for sodium fluoride totalling 4,150kg (4.2 tons)"

3: "I asked my officials to determine whether any other licences for chemicals had been granted for Syria over the last ten years.

"They identified five other licences, all for sodium fluoride, issued in July 2004, September 2005, March 2007, February 2009 and May 2010 (for, respectively, 50kg, 2000kg, 50kg, 2000kg and 50kg).

"These licences all predate the conflict in Syria. They were issued to two UK exporters for dispatch to two Syrian companies. I am confident that each application was properly assessed to determine end use and that the exports were for legitimate commercial purposes, namely cosmetics and health care products. The volumes of sodium fluoride covered by these licences are consistent with commercial use.

4: ""I want to assure you there is no evidence that exports of chemicals from the UK have been deployed in Syrian weapons programmes and I have determined that there has been no breach of controls or international obligations. The Government remains confident that UK export controls continue to be among the most stringent in the world."

All of that appeared in a newspaper Jom - now what makes your newspaper more believable? Now as far as stringency relating to things that kill people go Jom, we are certainly a damned sight more stringent than the Russians who are just about to be made to appear complete and utter fools by Bashar Al-Assad - the Russians won't mind too much as their man will remain in place with his chemical weapons intact and they [The Russians] will keep their naval base.

Any reason do you think why the Russians have not made public all this compelling evidence that Bashar Al-Assad said he had regarding "rebel" responsibility for the attacks on the 21st August? My guess is because the Russians know that when it comes to rigging evidence the Syrians ain't too smart, but the UN weapons inspectors are and any "evidence" from ol' Bashar's side is not going to withstand critical evaluation and analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 11:41 AM

"British companies sold chemicals to Syria that were then used"
Selling potentially of use to a mass-murderer is implicating Britain in a war crime.
Are you saying it's ok because he may or may not have used them yet?
"Personally I see quite a major difference in the statements - can't you?"
Not really - I haven't claimed they have been used, but they might have been and it is possible that, should the negotiations fail, he still has them for future use
What on earth is your point - or didn't your intensive training take you that far my little termite?
"Assad didn't start slaughtering his fellow citizens with his stockpile of Russian weaponry until March 2011."
You know more than I do then - where did he get the equipment he has been using to torture and suppress his people over the last couple of decaades then - we know of his human rights and abuses record - his torture chambers, his 'dissapearing' of his opponents - it ewas all covered in the Amnesty report on Syrian human rights abuses.
You raised the same point then - "did we have a crystal ball" was your exact wording.
Britain has known of Assad's behavior for as long as it has been going on, it was reported to them by amnesty, yet they continued to sell armoured cars, tear gas, and no, as it transpires, materials for chemical weapons (not forgetting your "sniper rifles of course)- and it has announced that it will continue to trade with whoever wins now - "British Trade must not be affected by the trouble" - remember my little terrapin?
Why is it necessary to point out the same thing over and over again to you morons - or have I just answered my own question?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 11:53 AM


And you can show any of this garbage to be fact, can you

You certainly can find nothing to prove British products were used for weapons, but I can substantiate that they have not.
It was a big story just that licences were issued.
If it went for weapons, a lowly clerk in the department would have whistleblown by now.
The story would be huge, with ministerial resignations.
None of that has happened Jim, because it is bollocks.

Since when - four days ago when it was updated in the Daily Mail

That is either a stupid mistake or a lie Jim.
It was published on the 7th and last updated on the 8th.
Link again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415081/Britain-sent-poison-chemicals-Assad-Proof-UK-delivered-Sarin-agent-Syrian-regime

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:17 PM

Er, LAUNCH???

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:12 AM

"I haven't claimed they have been used" Oh yes you have "Impartial" Jom:

1: 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"

Jom – BS: chemical weapons in Syria – 13/09/13

What chemical weapons did Britain send to Syria?
None in 2013
None in 2012 – the existing export licences were revoked by the British Government to stop precisely what you accuse them of
Between 2004 and 2010 roughly 4,150kg in five different shipments to two companies not associated with the production of any weaponry of any kind in quantities that matched the manufacturing output of those companies.

2: Britain and America historically have bee the world's leading arms suppliers for terrorist states - including Syria and their supplies have included chemical weapons

Jom – BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria – 15/09/13

World's leading terrorist states over the last 40 years:

North Korea – supplied by China and Russia
Iraq – Supplied by Russia, China & France
Libya – Supplied by Russia
Syria – Supplied by Russia
Iran – Supplied by Russia and China

Now Russia and China manufacture chemical and biological warfare agents and the specialized warheads required to deploy them – Britain and America do not, so your contention that the UK and the USA have supplied Syria with any weapons let alone chemical weapons is a complete and utter crock.

3: You continue to claim this - you have yourself along with Mudcat's self appointed weapons expert, identified "MERELY" sniper rifle bullets, (though you hastily changed your mind when you realised how stupid you had been)
You have tried to pass off chemical components for saran as "harmless" - the fact that Britain only withdrew the licences when they were told to by the UN rules is immaterial - they sell weapons to monsters.

The export licence for 7.62mm rifle ammunition that was issued in, when was it 2009? Which no-one has yet proved resulted in a sale or an actual shipment? The chemical components of most things taken in isolation can be perfectly harmless or deadly – they only become chemical weapons however when they are purchased or manufactured with the express intent of being combined with other ingredients to form a substance specifically designed to cause injury and death according to the CWC.
What UN rules are you talking about – Keith has quite rightly corrected you on this blunder of yours – there are no UN rules on this – there are EU rules that the UK were instrumental in putting in place and it was in conformance with those EU rules that licences were revoked before any order could be shipped.

4: The updte was the fact that sales of the saran chemical ??? have been going on for six years, the last sale was de-licensed - the earlier ones took plave therefore the recent gas attack was almosst certainly carried out using BRITISH SUPPLIED COMPONENTS
Really what certainty exists? – For a fact you don't even know if one single milligram of sodium fluoride imported into Syria from the UK between 2004 and 2010 went into the manufacture of anything other than for its stated purpose.

5: "Britain has known of Assad's behavior for as long as it has been going on, it was reported to them by amnesty, yet they continued to sell armoured cars, tear gas, and no, as it transpires, materials for chemical weapons (not forgetting your "sniper rifles of course)"

Right then Jom below is a list that takes you to what the Ba'athist regime in power in Syria has bought in terms of weaponry over the past few decades please enlighten us as to what items were purchased and supplied by either the UK or the USA (I think that Syria got more than just a little pissed off with both the UK and the USA in the summer of 1967).

Assad's Army's weapons

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 05:34 AM

""you have my and Don's position on this matter - give your own honestly rather than "Britain is innocent" - she isn't and the world knows that""

Please refrain from misrepresenting my vies Jim. You only give more ammunition to the biased ones.

I have said I will wait for evidence more compelling than political propaganda, before apportioning responsibilty for the gas attack.

Add to that the fact that I have said throughout that military intervention should not happen until the culprit has been irrefutably identified.

So your views and mine do not coincide in any way other than our opinion of the opposition.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:51 PM

I don't think you can trust Wikipedia to have the most relevant information on this issue.
This is within the province of state department classified documents and you would have
to query the CIA and MI6 for genuine information. Wiki's function is best served by non-political or biographical data. Remember who can post information to Wiki and all the sources quoted in the world will not reveal the truth of this matter. The fact is, that unless you are working for the CIA or agencies that are involved directly in this issue, you don't know what you're talking about. This is not a transparent issue.

Did the CIA use sarin? We don't know and no one on this thread knows unless they work for the CIA or other relevant agencies. In the meantime, the best we can do is wade through
the propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 02:02 AM

"I don't think you can trust Wikipedia to have the most relevant information on this issue."

I assume that "on this issue" you are referring to the military hardware that the Assad regime has acquired and still continues to receive from "Mother Russia".

Odd though isn't it that wikipedia is always an unimpeachable source when it suits some arguments and a useless source when it contradicts those same arguments.

I believe that nobody has to go to the CIA or MI6 to discover what military hardware the Assad Regime uses and who supplies that regime - simply watch the ghastly news coverage from the area, read reports from the various NGOs, consult Jane's, read reports from the UN's observers and weapons inspectors.

One NGO detailed the top twelve "killers" in Assad's weapons inventory - ten came directly from Russia and of the other two one came from China and the other came from Egypt or more likely Iran, both being copies of Russian systems - all information I have looked at supports what is shown quite clearly in the wikipedia article I provided the link to (Not a Union Standard or a Stars and Stripes in sight).

Did the CIA use Sarin in the attacks of the 21st August 2013 in Damascus, or were they in any way responsible? The massive weight of evidence available to third party independent inspectors suggests that no they did not, and no they were not.

Jom "The Impartial" quotes blogger Finian Cunningham who states that the Russians have evidence that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons, a statement that Jom obviously believes and has swallowed hook-line-and sinker. Only thing is though, the Russians have, for reasons best known to themselves, decided not to share this evidence with anybody, perhaps if they did a thread could be opened under the title:

"Did FSS use Spetsnaz to launch the Sarin missile in Syria to discredit the rebels?"

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:00 AM

String, presumably you have seen some of the vast amounts of video coming out of Syria.
Have you or anyone ever seen a US or UK made weapon?
Any Western country?

Neither have I.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:04 AM

Can't see your argument Terrytoon
There never has been any dispute that argument that Russia has been the main supplier of weapons to Syria - certainly not from me
At the same time, there is no argument that Britain has been supplying chemicals that can, and probably were used for the production of sarin gas for over six years (at least)
You want to join your brain-dead mate in arguing that it's OK because the Syrian authorities insisted that it was only for the use in production of aluminium framed windows and toothpaste, or "Russia sells them more than we do" feel free
Selling war criminals anything that is capable of killing and maiming human beings is - or should be - collusion in war crimes.
When the withdrawal of all trade is a possible means to stop the massacres of civilians, and when this is suggested by an official who has taken part in those massacres, to ignore it is an act of gross inhumanity.
Britain continues to regard Assad's Syria as a trading partner whatever the outcome of the present conflict - ministers have made it clear that it "cannot be allowed to disrupt trading relationships."
You and your mate seem to feed on cut-n-pasted "facts" rather than the grim realities of trading with these monsters.
I was amused at your response to the "sniper bullets".
If I remember rightly, you and Humanist Keith identified them as being merely "a few sniper rifles(sic)"
You went on to sneer that they were only used for target practice "snipers tend to do that" were your exact words.
Then, realising how that related to the fact that mothers carrying children in arms were being shot down by snipers on the streets of Homs, you both beat a hasty retreat, first claiming there was no evidence that the sale never existed, then that it did but the licence was withdrawn, then that it was for a private buyer and was for hunting, than that Britain had no idea of the Syrian regime's human rights record, ("did they have a crystal ball?")....
It was around then you rode off into the sunset, leaving your mate to fight the good fight alone - he managed a couple more contradictory excuses, finally settling on "I made a mistake, I thought we were talking about Libya".
Didn't Captain Mainwaring teach you the value of "concentrating on the job in hand if you were ever to defeat the Hun" when you were drilling in the schoolyard back in Warmington of Sea?
Consistency lad, consistency - that's the secret of being a good toy soldier!
You don't even appear to have the dubious quality of dogmatic fanaticism that your mate does and tend to scurry away when the going gets tough, leaving him to fight the good fight alone.
Britain trades arms with war criminals making us complicit in war crimes - a recorded fact.
We sold gas, armoured cars and other forms of riot control equipment that were used on the streets of Homs and Aleppo - also a recorded fact   
Britain sold gas and riot control gear to Bahrain, was forced to withdraw thirteen licences, then hosted an arms fair to sell them more.
Now - bluster away - it seems to be your one talent
Jim Carroll
By the way, I'm increasingly impressed by your used of the highly inventive use of my name "Jom" - it takes a stunning brain to think to pick up on one of my typos - magnificent.
Carry on sergeant!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:08 AM

No. Not relying on the Syrian authorities Jim.
The British government made the checks.
Peaceful use only.
Metal finishing and cosmetics.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:18 AM

"Peaceful use only."
Ah - but did they get it in writing!!!
We are still talking about the the regime that has been torturing, disappearing and gassing its people for decades aren't we?
These are chemicals are essential for the manufacture of sarin weapons
Assad is a long-term practitioner of torture and murder   
Assad has used sarin weapons on his people
Facts
Assad is a career war criminal and human rights abuser
It has been known he and his family have been torturing and disappearing his people throughout that time
The chemicals sold by Britain are essential to the manufacture of sarin.
Assad has recently been found to have used sarin on a massive scale on his own people
What does that add up to - two and two make - six maybe?
What possible guarantees can there possibly be what those British chemicals were used for and does it matter
CHEMICALS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING CHEMICAL WEAPONS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE REACH OF A THUG LIKE ASSAD WHATEVER THEIR CLAIMED USE
Matches are for lighting cigarettes, you don't leave them within the reach of pyromaniacs.
What "checks" were made - so far we only have your and Vince the Mince's word to go on - can you actually show what guarantees were secures before the sales were made?
OF COURSE YOU CAN'T - NO SUCH "GUARANTEES" ARE POSSIBLE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
As you appear to have abandoned any intelligence you might once have possessed, please stop insulting ours.
Britain should never have sold peashooters to Assad, let alone the components for chemical warfare.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:34 AM

Flouride is a readily available, common and cheap commodity.
Fortunes are not made supplying it.
Not like armaments.

Assad could get it anywhere.
We make sure ours is not misused, but others don't care.
Especially not those happy to supply lethal weaponry anyway.

Assad did not need to use our flouride for weapons.
Not worth the trouble to deceive when it is so easily obtained elsewhere.

We will not agree on this.
A cast iron case has been made against you, but it makes no difference.
You just love to hate Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 06:02 AM

"Flouride is a readily available, common and cheap commodity."
Fluoride is essential to the manufacture of chemical weapons - it should not be sold to war criminals who use chemical weapons
If Assad can get it anywhere, why were the licences withdrawn?
Can we assume that you were lying when you claimed that guarantees were obtained as you have now U-turned and are now claiming that no guarantees were necessary?
As I told the Chocolate Soldier - consistency is the order of the day.
"You just love to hate Britain."
Don't you always fall back on this one in a corner?
I am a Briton who hates those who associate ordinary British people with war crimes and I hate people who accuse ordinary British people of selling arms to killers
IT IS THE BRITISH ARMS INDUSTRY WHO SELL ARMS TO MONSTERS AND IT IS BRITISH POLITICIANS WHO LICENCE THOSE SALES - NOT THE BRITISH PEOPLE
TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS THE BRITISH PEOPLE WHO FACILITATE THOSE SALES IS ABOUT AS ANTI-BRITISH AS IT GETS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 06:09 AM

"Please refrain from misrepresenting my vies Jim. You only give more ammunition to the biased ones."
Meant to answer this one yesterday Don
Didn't misrepresent your views - merely said we have both put our views.
We disagree on many things, including here, but I respect those disagreements as being honest - can't bring myself round to saying the same thing of Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 06:33 AM

1: "There never has been any dispute that Russia has been the main supplier of weapons to Syria"

It therefore follows according to your argument that they then are most certainly complicit in the atrocities that have occurred there - only thing is Jom, being impartial as you are, that you have never actually ever said that or specifically taken them to task over it.

2: "At the same time, there is no argument that Britain has been supplying chemicals that can, and probably were used for the production of sarin gas for over six years (at least)"

No argument that Britain has licenced the export of chemicals that could possibly have been used for the production of Sarin gas. But "could possibly have been" does not = were, or even probably were. Particularly when you match quantities to what the stated use was and the production of the companies involved - In short Jom there was no sodium fluoride left over to manufacture Sarin gas with.

There is also no argument, due to the existence of documented records that show, that no such chemicals have been exported from Britain to Syria since March 2010.

3: "Selling war criminals anything that is capable of killing and maiming human beings is - or should be - collusion in war crimes."

Agreed now let us hear you castigate the Russians and the Chinese for doing precisely that - but I will not hold my breath.

4: "When the withdrawal of all trade is a possible means to stop the massacres of civilians, and when this is suggested by an official who has taken part in those massacres, to ignore it is an act of gross inhumanity."

Of course withdrawal of trade is a possible means of halting the massacres of civilians - so tell us who is preventing such sanctions being implemented by the Security Council of the United Nations? Rhetorical question, we already know the answer to that Russia and China. The EU has put embargoes in place, Britain was instrumental in suggesting them, unfortunately the EU are the only nations observing them so they are reduced to being pointless and ineffective gestures.

5: "Britain continues to regard Assad's Syria as a trading partner whatever the outcome of the present conflict - ministers have made it clear that it "cannot be allowed to disrupt trading relationships."

Care to name me one single country in the world that does not take that stance? I know for a fact that you cannot. Doesn't alter the fact that at present the Russians are still trading with Assad's Syria, supplying him with weapons and with munitions, but Britain and the EU are not.

6: "You and your mate seem to feed on cut-n-pasted "facts" rather than the grim realities of trading with these monsters."

Only thing is Jom - WE are NOT trading with these monsters - Russia and China on the other hand ARE and they always have been.

7: I have never referred to any sale of sniper rifles by Britain to Syria - quite simply because there never has been any sale of sniper rifles to Syria by Britain. You on the other hand stated that Britain had supplied rifles to the Assad regime that were being used to kill people in Homs, and you persisted in that claim until it was pointed out to you that it was rifle ammunition, which you then said was being used to kill people in Homs. Only trouble with that giant leap was that while a licence to export a tiny amount of standard NATO 7.62mm ammunition was granted in 2009 (IIRC), there never was any record of the sale actually having gone through or of any delivery of that ammunition to Syria. The licence was issued to a private business and not any British Government Department.

I could not see why the Syrians who are equipped by the Russians would want standard Nato 7.62mm ammunition as that would be useless in the weapons that they used. So unlike doing as you do and merely run on conjecture I did a bit of research and found that the Iraqi Police had acquired Austrian Steyr SSG 69 rifles which use standard Nato 7.62mm ammunition - of the weapons available to the Syrian forces the Steyr would be the least effective to use in a combat situation (I mean let's face it you are going to elect to go into combat armed with a five round bolt action rifle rather than an equally accurate semi-automatic rifle with a thirty round magazine? - Yeah of course you would) - that is why police forces use them not army personnel.

The value of the export licence granted in 2009 would have purchased ~100,000 rounds, all of which, provided that they were ever sent and there is no evidence that they were, you seem to think were saved up for two years to use against civilian targets in Homs in 2011 - highly unlikely don't you think? Again it goes to choice of weapon are you going to go into combat armed with a gun that only has a very limited supply of ammunition or are you going to go with the Russian stuff whose ammunition supplies are limitless? Another no-brainer.

Oh and people in both police forces and in various branches of the armed forces who are qualified as snipers, or are training to become snipers do go through an inordinate amount of ammunition (830 rounds per month for a period of two years would mean that only 166 men out of Syria's 220,000 could fire 5 bullets per month - then all their ammo would have been gone - so were civilians killed in Homs by standard Nato 7.62mm bullets? I strongly doubt it - you of course could supply the proof but again I won't hold my breath)

8: "Britain trades arms with war criminals making us complicit in war crimes - a recorded fact."

What arms? What war crimes? What recorded fact (HINT - Finian Cunningham saying so does not make it a fact)

9: "We sold gas, armoured cars and other forms of riot control equipment that were used on the streets of Homs and Aleppo - also a recorded fact"

Sold Gas? Calor or Propane? How much?
Armoured Cars? Make? Type? Numbers? When?
I mean to say Jom if as you say this is all recorded fact you must have all the relevant details at your finger tips along with all the pertinent sources. But my guess is that you haven't.

By the way I loved your

As you where corporal ROFLMAO

But honoured to see that you have promoted me.

Funny thing about mistakes, in the heat of the moment when people tend to froth at the mouth as you do Jom, those mistakes get carried over when they write as other people - makes them easy to spot.

As to lack of responses referred to? I very rarely even bother to read a single thing that you write and Keith A has done a more than adequate job in ripping you to shreds in this and on other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 08:17 AM

1: "only thing is Jom, being impartial as you are, that you have never actually ever said that or specifically taken them to task over it."
Have made it clear from the start that both Russia and China's role is reprehensible but I don't accept it as an excuse for Britain's involvement - why should I support them now - they are one of the 'Great and the Good' since they shook off the bonds of Communism - they are arms dealers, just like Britain.

2: " No argument that Britain has licenced the export of chemicals that could possibly have been used for the production of Sarin gas. "
Nuff sed

But "could possibly have been" does not = were, or even probably were.
Can you produce figures to show the amounts of chemicals sold to Syria over the last six years – no?
Though that was the case.

2There is also no argument, due to the existence of documented records that show, that no such chemicals have been exported from Britain to Syria since March 2010.2
So what – do these chemicals come with a "use by" date, don't the Syriand have enormous stockpiles going back years

3: "Agreed now let us hear you castigate the Russians and the Chinese for doing precisely that - but I will not hold my breath.
Have made it clear from the start that both Russia and China's role is reprehensible but I don't accept it as an excuse for Britain's involvement - why should I support them now - they are one of the 'Great and the Good' since they shook off the bonds of Communism - thy are arms dealers, just like Britain.

4: " so tell us who is preventing such sanctions being implemented by the Security Council of the United Nations? "
So what – we have been reliably informed that Britain's trade is valued and would be a possible lever in ending the killing – we have ignored this in order that our trade might not be interrupted – even if it does not stop Assad it still leaves us with his shit on our hands as a trading partner.

5: " Care to name me one single country in the world that does not take that stance?"
Doesn't matter – I'm a Brit and am answerable only to what is done in the name of Britain.

6: "WE are NOT trading with these monsters "
We have, and the Government have made clear that we will continue to do so, after all, we continue to try to sell arms to Bahrain, or have I got that wrong?

7: I have never referred to any sale of sniper rifles by Britain to Syria - quite simply because there never has been any sale of sniper rifles to Syria by Britain
Keith did – you went along with it as "sniper rifle ammunition" and followed it with all the convolutions as I described, then finally slunk away, leaving Keith to further nausea up the mess you'd both created.
The rest of your comments on this are unqualified pseudo-military bullshit that can be heard in any 'Dad's Army' bar around closing time – the licence was issued – if it was not fulfilled – prove it – Keith is still insisting that he thought you were talking about Libya.

8: "Finian Cunningham saying so does not make it a fact"
Certainly does not, however, Assad is a war criminal and Britain licensed ammunition (as you pointed out, possibly "sniper rifle bullets") to a customer in Syria decades after they were identified as human rights monsters.
The press was full of the uses Bahrain put to the riot control gear sold to them by Britain, so much so that the Government was forced to withdraw thirteen licences for similar – Britain then went on to attempt to sell that same happy State yet more weapons at an Arms Fair held a month into the Arab Spring disputes.
You seem to have missed the bit that Keith ignored about selling arms to Sri Lanka.
Or don't any of these people fall within your definition of "war criminals and human rights abusers".

8: "Sold Gas? Calor or Propane? How much?"
Another bit you conveniently missed – riot control gear? Water cannon? 'unarmed' armoured cars – all acknowledged by Keith, who proposed that it was OK to continue supplying them after people were being shot down in the streets of Homs.

"Keith A has done a more than adequate job in ripping you to shreds in this and on other threads."
Yeah -I can see that - he has done more U-turns and wheelies than the boy-racers do here on a Sunday afternoon after the pubs close.
At least hs fanaticism has some consistency - you piss off every time the water comes over your Hush Puppies.
Next!!
Jim Carroll   
Still not worked out a substitute for "Jom" give us a shout if you need a hand!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 11:15 AM

Naw I like the sound of - Jom "The Impartial" - there's this utter ridiculousness about it when matched up to the inane rubbish you come out with.


1: What British involvement? None proved so far. Russia was the greatest exporter of arms around the world in terms of quantity long before it "shook off the bonds of Communism".

2: Amounts of Sodium Fluoride sold to Syria by two British Companies in the last 6 years? - 3,000kg

2: I would imagine that these chemicals do have a "use by date" plus fairly strict conditions relating to containers, general storage and exposure to the elements. I have no idea at all of what "stockpiles" of chemicals the Syrians may, or may not, hold, but one thing of which I am certain in the last six years only 3,000kg of Sodium Fluoride was sent from the UK and nothing has been sent to Syria since May 2010.

3: What British involvement? You have proved none.

4: Currently we are not trading with Syria

5: And what is being done in the name of Britain precisely? As far as Syria goes all we are committing and sending is humanitarian aid which you state is Imperialistic and as such should be stopped. We most certainly are not sending "weapons".

6: Oh so we have traded with Syria in the past but not at present in fact we haven't traded with them since almost a year BEFORE the current crackdown began. Will we like every other country in world trade with Syria once it has managed to pass through these current troubles? I would certainly hope so, to do anything else would be against our own national interests.

7: Keith did, I didn't. Keith later had the honesty and integrity to admit that he had made an error – something that you are incapable of. The export licence issued was for standard 7.62mm ammunition, that as yet no proof exists that it was ever sent.


8: No gas, no armoured cars sold to Syria - Period. So please stop wittering on about Britains arms sales to Assad - they don't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 12:05 PM

Piss off Terminus - you have had my answers - I responded to yours one by one
Now you are reducd to total evasion on every point
I'd quote the dogs and fleas proverb - but too late for that, I'm afraid
Anout turn - quick march, left, right, left, right........
JOM (as it seems to turn you on) Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 01:43 AM

So in summation so far Jom:

1: There is absolutely nothing to connect the CIA, or any element of the anti-government forces inside Syria with the rocket attack of the 21st August.

2: Any chatter about conventional Syrian Army weapons hitting "rebel" chemical weapons and them then leaking have been completely dispelled by the UN weapons inspectors report on the incident

3: While I deal in fact, logic and reason you run on emotive claptrap backed up by the ill-informed and unfounded opinions of extremely biased bloggers selected solely because those opinions match your own views (That is why "The Impartial" tag, that you gave yourself, is so hilarious)

4: Every single contention you have made with regard to the Government of the United Kingdom and their dealings with Syria have been reduced and exposed as complete and utter twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 02:47 AM

Additionally Jom:

5: I asked fellow mudcatters who had been ex-US Servicemen to tell us all about the chemical and biological weapons inventory of the US armed forces, of the training that they must have undoubtedly received related to the storage, handling, arming and firing of such weapons - and just as I predicted when I originally asked the question on this thread - NOT A SINGLE TAKER - So much for the USA's extensive stock of chemical and biological weapons.

6: Where is this compelling evidence of rebel involvement that Bashar Al-Assad handed over to the Russians? The Russians did say that they were going to submit it to the UN in the course of a few days didn't they? What's the betting it never sees the light of day, let alone get handed over, because it is what it is - a complete and utter crock (That not even the Russian FSS can dress up to achieve even a modicum of credibility).

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:19 AM

There is absolutely nothing to connect the CIA, or any element of the anti-government forces inside Syria with the rocket attack of the 21st August."
Who on earth said there was - I haven't commented.
You and Keith have been given reports of chemical and convention military equipment sales to Syria, Bahrain, Sri Lanks.... and a whole host of despotic states, along with a statement from a British minister.
Nobody is defending Russian sales to Syria - they are a fact
You now appear to be erecting straw men to avoid the fact that Britain is an arms dealing state that profits from despotic regimes that use British arms against their own people
You are a sad pseudo-military fantasist whose nearest approach to military knowledge comes from despertely sought-out cut-'n-pastes and the proud fact that you own a B.B, air rifle or some sort of pop-gun - I'll bet you play War Games
You have produced not a single shred of evidence to contradict the reports you have been given, rather, you wrap your claims in meaningless verbiage that appears to be designed to impress us "civvies" with your soldier-boy knowledge - you are a sad, sad man - go and fantasise somewhere else, you really are not very good at this.
JOM Carroll
You don't even have the imagination to produce a half - decent response to Terrytoon, Terrabyte, Turpitude... and have to rely on my typo - "JOM" - "Christmas...." for crying out loud, can't you do better than that - I went through primary school listening to inanities such as those - try "Lewis" or "Carroll's a girl's name" - will send you a few more if it will help you feel like a man!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:13 AM

Ah Jom you are indeed priceless - this one is a cracker:

"There is absolutely nothing to connect the CIA, or any element of the anti-government forces inside Syria with the rocket attack of the 21st August." - Teribus

"Who on earth said there was - I haven't commented." - Jom

What is the subject of this thread Jom? (I'll give you a hint - it is detailed in the box above labelled "Subject:) It has something to do with the likelihood of the CIA being involved in launching a missile armed with a chemical warhead in Syria - and yet you haven't seen fit to comment on it? Don't you think it is time that you did - all you have done so far is exactly what Keith has accused you of - wittering on about big bad Britain and completely ignoring all the facts that explode the myths you are attempting to create.

"You and Keith have been given reports"

No we haven't Jom, you have treated us to newspaper articles, most of which you clearly demonstrate that you patently do not understand - in other words Jom - your english comprehension skills suck to the point that I believe they are non-existent.

"Nobody is defending Russian sales to Syria - they are a fact"

Yet your condemnation in print is only reserved for the UK - please don't witter on about you being a Brit and your country doing whatever in your name - on this forum you have previously rejected your British roots and rejoiced in running off to the west coast of Ireland to embrace your "Celtic Roots".

"... and the proud fact that you own a B.B, air rifle or some sort of pop-gun"

The BB Gun

The Air Rifle

The Pop Gun


"You have produced not a single shred of evidence to contradict the reports you have been given"

I would imagine that if I had been given a report to comment on I would have done so. But as of yet you have not produced a single report for consideration - opinions written in newspaper articles by bloggers as biased as yourself and other articles that if read properly you would find actually support what Keith and I have been stating, your lack of the ability to comprehend strightforward english is at times astounding

"You don't even have the imagination to produce a half - decent response to Terrytoon, Terrabyte, Turpitude...

Well name calling is your thing isn't it Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 02:19 PM

Don't think you need to be involved in any of that nonsense Teribus.

"Mr T" is an abbreviation not a term of abuse BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 05:22 PM

My living in Ireland and thread drift - is that all you've got left Terminus?
Pathetic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 05:40 PM

By the way – I understand enough of what I post to know not to invent non-existent facts and figures of sodium fluoride sold to Assad by Britaim

UK DELIVERED SYRIA CHEMICALS NEEDED FOR SARIN PRODUCTION 'FOR 6 YEARS'
British companies sold sodium fluoride, a key ingredient in the manufacture of the deadly nerve gas sarin, to a Syrian firm from 2004-2010, British media reveal, a sale that has been called 'disturbing' following the chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
Between July 2004 and May 2010, the British government issued five export licenses to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, necessary for the production of sarin, according to a report in the Daily Mail, a British daily.
Sarin, a nerve gas that is hundreds of times deadlier than cyanide, is considered one of the world's most dangerous chemical warfare agents. It works on the nervous system, over-stimulating muscles and vital organs, and a single drop can be lethal in minutes. The US, France and Germany say the deadly chemical was used in the attacks of August 21 in the Damascus neighborhood of Ghouta that left hundreds of civilians dead or injured.
The Sunday Mail says UK firms did export sodium fluoride to a Syrian cosmetics firm throughout the six years for what they claim were legitimate purposes. The daily quotes British MPs admitting for the first time that the chemical was delivered to Syria which has been condemned as a 'grossly irresponsible' move and a clear violation of international protocol on the trade of dangerous substances.
British MPs signaled their extreme displeasure with the shocking revelations.
"These are very disturbing revelations uncovered by The Mail on Sunday regarding the provision of sodium fluoride to Syria. At no time should we have allowed President Assad's regime to get its hands on this substance," Thomas Docherty MP, a member of the Commons Arms Export Controls Committee, said on Saturday.
"Previously we thought that while export licenses had been granted, no chemicals were actually delivered. Now we know that in the build-up to the Syrian civil war, UK companies – with the backing of our Government – were supplying this potentially lethal substance," he added.

While the last export license was issued in May 2010, the licenses are obtained prior to manufacture and the industry standard requires four to five months before the chemicals are delivered.
"We are looking at late 2010 for the British supplies of sodium fluoride reaching Syria," Docherty said.
The Government has some very serious questions to answer, he concluded.
However, a spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) defended the sale of the chemical to Syria, saying the amount was "commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons program. This remains the case."
The BIS refused to release the names of the two UK exporters for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
This comes on top of another sarin-related scandal as earlier British officials were found to have granted export licenses for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride exports to Syria on the eve of the Syrian civil conflict breakout. The January 2012 licenses were given in the knowledge that both substances "could also be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of chemical weapons," according to a report published by the House of Commons Committee on Arms Export Controls.
Angus Robertson, a Scottish National Party MP, told RT that the matter was raised in the House of Commons last week following the House of Commons ruling not to participate in military action against the Syrian government.
"Defense ministers had to explain why it was that the UK would even consider granting an export license,"he said, adding that it was "impossible to tell" whether rebels could have got hold of the chemicals once they had passed into the country.

A Syrian "I'm still concerned, however, as the chemical licenses were issued at a time when the situation in Syria had already deteriorated," Robertson added.

http://rt.com/news/uk-sarin-syria-weapons-chemical-573/

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:27 PM

Sorry, missed abit:
Soory about the coloured letters – you seem to be missing bits.
Jim Carroll

LAST NIGHT THE BIS REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW MUCH SODIUM FLUORIDE WAS BOUGHT AND SOLD – or which companies were involved.
Intelligence expert Richard Kemp, a former member of the Government's COBRA emergency committee, said last night: 'President Assad would undoubtedly have diverted legitimately exported supplies of sodium fluoride in order to make chemical weapons.
'He would have absolutely no qualms about doing this, and his practice was well known to British diplomats and our intelligence agencies. In this light, it is grossly irresponsible of BIS to have approved these licences from 2004 to 2010.'
Scientists at the UK's military research laboratory at Porton Down proved that sarin was used in the chemical attack on August 21 after testing items of clothing recovered from the scene.
The US says the attack, near Damascus, killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.
And yesterday, EU officials meeting in Lithuania announced that they are convinced that the chemical attack was the work of President Assad's forces rather than any opposition fighters.
Last night a senior scientist condemned the sale, as Syria is one of just five countries to have refused to sign protocols against the use of chemical weapons.
The other nations not to have signed up to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) accords are North Korea, South Sudan, Egypt and Angola.
Professor Alastair Hay, a toxicology expert at Leeds University, said: 'The Government's approval of sodium fluoride sales to Syria during a period when it was widely suspected the regime was stockpiling dangerous substances is deeply disturbing.
'This was a serious mistake on BIS's part as while sodium fluoride has a multitude of benign uses, such as toothpaste, it remains a key ingredient in the manufacture of sarin. Quite simply, you need fluoride to make sarin.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415081/Britain-sent-poison-chemicals-Assad-Proof-UK-delivered-Sarin-agent-Syrian-regime

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:32 PM

Seems that there aren't enough tin-foil hats to go around...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 02:39 AM

Jim, you have put up that old Daily Mail piece again!
Since the 7th September, those calims have all been debunked.
That is why there is nothing more recent.
The story is dead.
The claims baseless.

And why post Russia Today rehashing it the next day?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 04:07 AM

"Since the 7th September, those calims have all been debunked."
Nope - just denied by politicians - suppose it's the same thing to you
I was just reminding everybody of the properties of the "harmless" properties of the shit being sold to despots round the world by Britain - about as harmless as Terminal's "herbicide" Agent Orange" and "merely petrol" Napalm - not forgetting your and his "only a few sniper rifles".
"And why post Russia Today rehashing it the next day?"
Coorection Daily mail publishing an expanded version showing Britain's years worth of sales of the same lethal garbage to the same despots.
Have a nice day - I am.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 04:18 AM

Daily Mail 7th September, last updated on the 8th.

Nothing since because all refuted and debunked.
If a minister is caught lying to Parliament he has to resign.
They must have been confident that there was nothing more that could come out.

There are plenty of journalists would love to expose evidence if there was any, but there is not.

The story is dead except in your demented and hate filled head.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 02:17 AM

If you sort the wheat from the chaff from Jom's cut-n-paste contribution on 26 Sep 13 - 05:40 PM - you get this:

UK DELIVERED SYRIA CHEMICALS NEEDED FOR SARIN PRODUCTION 'FOR 6 YEARS'

British companies sold sodium fluoride to a Syrian firm from 2004-2010. Between July 2004 and May 2010, the British government issued five export licenses to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride according to a report in the Daily Mail.

The Sunday Mail says UK firms did export sodium fluoride to a Syrian cosmetics firm throughout the six years for what they claim were legitimate purposes.

While the last export license was issued in May 2010, the licenses are obtained prior to manufacture and the industry standard requires four to five months before the chemicals are delivered.

However, a spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) defended the sale of the chemical to Syria, saying the amount was "commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons program. This remains the case."

Everything else in that article Jom is padding and supposition - mere conjecture - not FACT.

Jom asked me to provide a figure for the amount of sodium fluoride that the UK had sold to Syria in the last six years (2007 to 2013) and according to the figures given for the export licences detailed above that works out at 3,000 kg.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 02:46 AM

Nothing in all that gets around the fact that Britain licensed and delivered chemicals essential for the manufacture of chemical weapons to a country run by a terrorist regime which uses those same chemical weapons against its own people - everything else is 'assurances' by politicians and their mouthpieces that the materials wouldn't be used for those purposes.
The stuff should never have been put within the reach of thee people in the first place - they should never have been sold it and if these sales were 'secure' they never need have withdrawn any licenses - it was, and the later licences (under pressure) were withdrawn because these sales were capable of producing chemical weapons.
Never gets more complicate than that.
Can't help but notice that you don't mention the weapons openly sold to all the other terrorist states Britain openly sells arms to - but you wouldn't, would you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 03:13 AM

By the way - I always treat claims such as types of weaponry and details of shipment with a large degree of scepticism - you have a recurring habit of making things up to suit your own pseudo-militaristic fantacising, as shown by your "sniper - rifle bullets", which you first set out to prove were "only sniper rifle bullets used for practice becay#use "snipers tended to do that" (your words), then that the sale never existed, that it did exist but was withdrawn..... and numerous other sets of unqualified 'facts' that you invented to extract yourself from your self-dug hole.
Have a good parade, d'you hear now!
JOM Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 04:37 AM

Only problem is Jom that if Company A makes stuff that requires chemicals such as sodium fluoride to produce it is very easy to check what their production run is and how much they use. If it takes "x" amount of component "A" to make such-and-such a quantity of product "B". Then over the course of say six years if their orders for component "A" remain constant and their production of product "B" remains constant then there is S.F.A. of component "A" being redirected from that manufacturer so that some unscrupulous bastard can product "Y".

Sources of information that will tell you all that are numerous and all unclassified. Most thrown out there by companies eager to entice you into buying their products, or look for investors. So it is not mere supposition on the part of politicians and their mouthpieces.

As for the licence issued in 2009 so that some individual could export an extremely tiny volume of 7.62mm NATO standard ammunition to Syria, if you can show that that ammunition was ever exported then go ahead and do so. But my guess is that although moves were made by both seller and purchaser to complete this sale, the sale never in fact went through and was never completed, primarily because whoever it was in Syria who was responsible for making this purchase realised that NATO 7.62mm ammunition is useless for Soviet or Russian weapons that fire Soviet or Russian 7.62mm rounds. It is called using ones common sense Jom.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 05:45 AM

" it is very easy to check what their production run is and how much they use"
In an open and democratic regime like Syria - really? Now you are telling me something I didn't know!!!
Current reports at the time of the Syrian protests produced photographs of British armoured cars on the streets.
Your friend Tweedledee even proposed this as ok and suggested further sales
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 05:53 AM

Armoured buses in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 06:13 AM

Alpha Cosmetics

Now then Jom, click on the products page and ask yourself if:

1: Any other "cosmetics" companies in the world (particularly the big, bad, evil, capitalist, western world) make any similar products.

2: They too use sodium fluoride in the manufacture of those products and how much is used to produce "x" amount of that product

3: It would be possible to purchase products that use sodium fluoride in their manufacture and scientifically analyse them to determine how much sodium fluoride would be required

4: Compare products to verify amounts and compare that to production data and amounts of sodium fluoride exported.

Gathering accurate data then using common sense, logic and reasoning you can then tell whether or not some newspaper with an agenda or some biased blogger is simply blowing smoke up your arse.

Cosmetics Suppliers in Syria - all five pages of them

Now try telling me that the information is not out there to be found and verified. Which is why I tend to believe it when a spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) stated that the amounts of sodium fluoride stated on the export licences granted were:

"Commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons program. This remains the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 06:29 AM

Neither tweedledum's nor Tweedledee's statements matter a toss - riot control gear was sold and licenced to a torturer and mass murder - ith both your blessings
The chemicals and their amounts are immaterial and unproven (unless we takee Terrytoon's word for it) - sarin-producing chemicals were sold and licenced to a torturing and mass-murdering state - end of story.
Whatever the facts of the sniper bullets sales, you pair of comedians identified them and claimed them unimportant despite your belief that they were sniper bullets and Assad's snipers were massacring the people of Homs at the time of your claims - also end of story
The next stop is yours isn't it - ding-ding
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:08 AM

This was not meant to be about Britain and how much you hate it Jim.
This is a real and serious issue.

Your hijacking of the thread has led to the revelation that Britain supplied no weapons to Syria, and that nothing we supplied was used for weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:39 AM

The Next Step

1: "riot control gear was sold and licenced to a torturer and mass murder - (w)ith both your blessings"

Or put more accurately the British Government granted export licences so that a company could export riot control gear to Syria. As all nations "torture" people, or use "enhanced interrogation methods" on people depending upon what definition of torture you care to rest upon - trade in anything in the world would become difficult.

I would doubt very much if Great Britain has exported anything to Syria since the EU introduced its embargo and prior to 11th March 2011 Bashar Al-Assad was no mass-murderer - his father had been one years previously (~40,000 people in Homs) but he had very little to do with us at the time as he was firmly in the pocket of the USSR during the Cold War and had objected to our "support" of Israel in 1967 and in 1973.

As to the issuing of export licences I would doubt very much if Keith is consulted before hand, I know for certain that I am not. Does the export of riot control gear manufactured in the UK bother me? No it does not - after all it will never be used on me if it is exported will it?

2: "The chemicals and their amounts are immaterial and unproven (unless we takee Terrytoon's word for it) - sarin-producing chemicals were sold and licenced to a torturing and mass-murdering state - end of story."

Well the chemicals and the amounts were expressly mentioned in articles that you referred to and provided links for and I can distinctly remember you asking me if I could quantify the amounts exported from the UK over the last 6 years - which I managed to do using the articles and links that you yourself provided - so not really just on my say so is it? Or are you now telling us all that the information in those articles and links provided by you was wrong?

As Bashar Al-Assad did not venture forth on his career as a mass-murderer until after 11th March 2011 then the British Government are not responsible for issuing licences for anything that has been sent to him that he has subsequently used against his own people (Last licence that led to any export being May 2010) - you still have to prove that Jom - and as you yourself say that you are scrupulously impartial I am sure that you will make all best efforts to do that Jom before you start frothing at the mouth and casting wild accusations about.

3: "The facts of the sniper bullets sales"

I seem to recall Jom that it was you who dashed into print at the time of the initial massacres in Homs in 2011 making claim that British weapons were being used to murder Syrian civilians. A claim that both Keith and myself successfully challenged.

You could not prove that any weapons had been sent from the UK to Syria but instead provided a newspaper article that in general detailed British exports to the region (Region stretching from Algeria to the Arabian Sea.). This article was possibly and deliberately, very poorly written so that it was ambiguous about who was sent what - hence Keith's mistake in taking from the article that sniper rifles had been sent to Syria, giving the man his due he openly admitted his error when the picture became clearer, from this poorly written article the export licence being referred to was for a small amount of rifle ammunition - the licence was indeed issued, but as yet there has never been anything offered in proof that the ammunition was ever purchased, dispatched or delivered. So as far as British weapons killing civilians in Homs goes, your original bleat was proved as being nothing more than ill-informed, baseless waffle.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 11:25 AM

"depending upon what definition of torture you care to rest upon "
Isn't torture and mass murder definition enough?
"I could quantify the amounts exported from the UK over the last 6 years - which I managed to do using the articles and links that you yourself provided "
No report, as far as I can see, has the quantities sold over the last six years - only claims by politicians that they were not sufficent to make weapons.
"prior to 11th March 2011 Bashar Al-Assad was no mass-murderer "
According to the Amnesty report he was.
You know this and asked if Britain had a crystal ball to inform them of the tortures and murders - they didn't need one they already had the Amnesty reports on torture and mass 'disappearances' in Syria
Even that nice Mr Cable was forced to admit that Britain did trade with despots and killers - maybe you and your funy friend will get round to it one day.
"Does the export of riot control gear manufactured in the UK bother me? No it does not - after all it will never be used on me if it is exported will it?"
Which says all that needs to be said by you and your kind - trade before all.
"it was you who dashed into print at the time of the initial massacres in Homs in 2011 making claim that British weapons were being used to murder Syrian civilians"
Nope - I said they were sold to a murdering regime who were slaughtering people on the streets of Homs - you assured me that it was OK because they were only used for practice by the peole who were doing the slaughtering (that is before you denied their existence altogether, said that the licenses have been withdrawn.... and all the other convolutions you went through
One of the few things that never change in this world is the breed of eejits we have to come with - not forgetting your sick mate of course.
Wasn't the British people who sell arms and chemicals to killers - just the Arnms Trade and our elected representatives - or are you still claiming that the British people support the selling of arms to anybody who will buy them, like you fick friend believes?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 02:29 AM

Typical Jom - you always seize upon the tail and never manage to grab the dog.

Although you are making progress of sorts:

1: You at least now accept that what you introduce into debate and portray as "Reports" are now nothing of the sort - but oddly enough this step you take only when someone uses the information in those articles against you.

2: Last export licence granted by the British Government that resulted in an actual export was in May 2010. Details given of all chemical export licences issued in the UK that resulted in actual exports from the UK cover the period 2004 to 2010 - the amounts by weight have been verified and are now public knowledge and very well documented.

3: Claims were not made by politicians they were made by civil servants working for the BIS who - " defended the sale of the chemical to Syria, saying the amount was "commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons program."

4: What "Mass Murders" were perpetrated by Bashar Al-Assad prior to the start of this current conflict? Take no offence Jom but I most certainly am not simply going to take YOUR word for it considering your total inability to understand even simple sentences in English.

5: Yes - trade before all - we are a trading nation but we tend to temper that at times to our own disadvantage with more than a fair degree of common sense. Of the 180,000-odd Syrians killed so far in this conflict I would be inclined to believe that the vast majority (i.e. in the region of 99% of them) had been killed by one side or the other using Russian weaponry. Yet you witter on about tear gas?? You froth at the mouth at what might have been done with such and such without a shred of evidence to back up your wild accusations that you attempt to present as FACT.

6: No Jom your original claim was that British weapons were slaughtering Syrian civilians in Homs - I'll dig out the reference for it.

7: "Wasn't the British people who sell arms and chemicals to killers - just the Arnms Trade and our elected representatives"

Oh but Jom IT IS British people who make and sell the arms and chemicals to killers, all of them private citizens who put in eight hours a day at work - if they didn't their families would go short and be unprovided for - the "Arnms Trade" (whatever that might be - frothing again Jom?) is made up of such ordinary people Jom, it is not some monstrous, impersonal, anonymous, monolith. Union and private pension funds invest in these industries in order that their members will ultimately receive the pensions they've contributed for. The only part "our elected" representatives play in the game is to say whether or not certain things can be sold to certain customers - if they are not our customers then they, sure as eggs are eggs, are going to be someone else's customer.

8: If the people of the Arab world and adherents of the religion of peace want to fight - then let them - three times now, "WE" (The Big, Bad, Capitalist, West) have stepped in and we've been castigated for it by you and your like. So we are damned if we do and we're damned if we don't - might as well keep people earning while they, the people of the middle-east and the religion of peace, get on with killing one another as that is what they are going to do come hell or high water irrespective of what we do or don't do.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 03:00 AM

Britain did trade with despots and killers

Which Arab states did not fall into that category Jim?
How many third world states do not?

It is hard enough for the the people forced to live under such regimes, without the world denying them any individual prosperity by refusing to trade with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 03:01 AM

Any takers for 400?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 03:18 AM

As promised in point 6 in my previous post:

Going back into the mists of time and the frothings of our Celtic Scouser:

Homs horror Thread:

"So you intend to continue to ignore the horrors of Homs brought about by sniper rifles sold by Britain - specifically for use on the civilian population (along with tear gas of course)." - Jim Carroll - Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:39 AM

Responded to as follows:

" Keith A of Hertford - Date: 14 Feb 12 - 01:54 PM
So you intend to continue to ignore the horrors of Homs brought about by sniper rifles sold by Britain
Britain has supplied no weapons to Syria.
Teribus was right.

Now then Jom who was it that {originally} claimed Britain sold sniper rifles to Syria specifically for use on the civilian population? Who was it said that they didn't?

Waiting for your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 05:35 AM

What's your point - if the ammunition supplied by Britain to Syria was used for target practice (font color=red>AS YOU INSISTED VERY FIRMLY IT WAS ("IT WAS USED FOR PRACTICE - THEY TEND TO DO THAT SORT OF THING" Britain will have done their bit in Homs by making sure the snipers did their job properly.
The claims on the sales may have been made originally by civil servants, but they have been used over and over again by politicians to cover there arses for selling this shit to Assad in the first place.
You were given the Amnesty report at the time - you chose to ignore it then and you seem now to be pleading ignorance of it - it's a matter of record, but perhaps you would like to defend him?
I assume we are to hear no more about his squeaky clean reputation prior to the latest atrocities - thought not!
Everything esse is unqualified, blustering pseudo-militaristic bullshit - ever thought of entering for Mastermind as your specialist subject
By the way, I meant to thank you for putting your position in context - "Does the export of riot control gear manufactured in the UK bother me? No it does not - after all it will never be used on me if it is exported will it?"
Couldn't have put it better myself - keep up the goog work - disss - missss
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 05:56 AM

""whoever it was in Syria who was responsible for making this purchase realised that NATO 7.62mm ammunition is useless for Soviet or Russian weapons that fire Soviet or Russian 7.62mm rounds.""

I've no intention of joining this three cornered merry-go-round, but the statement above intrigued me.

Given that I know the Russians and NATO use the same calibre, what is the difference which prevents crossover?

I ask out of genuine curiosity Teribus.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 06:08 AM

The Russian one is longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 08:27 AM

Is there any documented evidence to back these claims - these two have a long established history of inventing facts.
Jim Carroll
One of mny
http://globalsolutionspgh.org/2013/06/human-rights-in-syria-before-the-civilian-war/

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 08:28 AM

Other way round Keith. The Soviet/Russian 7.62mm round is short chamber ammunition (i.e. the cartridge is shorter than the Nato round)

AK-47 Round

NATO 7.62mm Round

I see JOM "The Impartial" has grabbed at the tail again and missed.

By the bye Jom you seem to have dodged my question:

Who was it that said Britain had supplied Assad with Sniper Rifles? - YOU did Jom

Who was it that told you they hadn't? - Keith A of Hertford

So who was it that introduced that blatant lie and total misrepresentation about sniper rifles into the Homs Horror thread? - YOU did Jom you little impartial rascal you.

That by the way was the point.

Now let me see what your next misrepresentation and wild leap is?

"if the ammunition supplied by Britain to Syria was used for target practice {Sorry your colours didn't work there for you Jom} Britain will have done their bit in Homs by making sure the snipers did their job properly."

Rather a large number of assumptions there aren't there Jom - like

1: Ammo if ever delivered at all was delivered in 2009 two years before the shooting started.

2: ~100,000 rounds IF DELIVERED would have all been used up within a year. You might possibly be capable of training up 11 men with that amount of ammo in that time.

3: Syrian National Service would mean that those trained in 2009 would not be present in the forces of the Syrian Army in 2011 - so the men trained in 2009 could well be fighting on the other side.

The Amnesty report talks about repression and lack of civil and human rights says nothing about Bashar Al-Assad being a Mass-Murderer, prior to March 2011 as you claim - His Dad, Hafaz, was though 10,000 to 55,000 killed on his orders at Hamma.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 11:50 AM

Just interested - it becomes difficult to sort out which is real and which is invented with you pair of clowns.
"So who was it that introduced that blatant lie and total misrepresentation about sniper rifles into the Homs Horror thread?"
Sorry -not guilty.
The first mention of sniper rifles on the Homs thread, apart from those supplied by Gaddaffi which was discussed earlier in the thread was in your friend's response to a link to military equipment sales.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
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."
Throughout this discussion I have never mentioned "Sniper rifles" other than to point out Keith's dismissing them as being unimportant - I produced a link to "small arms ammunition" - no more. It was he who thought it to be sniper bullets and was happy to describe them as "but all you have come up with is some sniper rifles" - harmless little toys as they are!
Are you really suggesting that snipers training using the the 2009 delivery of "SNIPER RIFLE BULLETS" would not have been making use of that training 18 months later on the streets of Homs - you're a joke!
By the way, the link I produced referred only to a licence, which you first supported as being unimportant, then denied, then claimed they were cancelled - all without proof, of course!
"National Service" ?????
The reports coming out of Homs described the snipers as "specially trained crack troops" - regulars - have your powers of invention no limits??
By the way, Nowhere do any of the reorts mentioned "100,000 rounds" - not in my link, and as far as I know, nowhere in any official documents, but there are newspaper reports of "a delivery".
Perhaps your mates down the pub told you what the delivery consisted of - waddya think?
"nothing about Bashar Al-Assad being a Mass-Murderer,"
Just a tortured and a disappearer - he later promoted himself to mass murderer
The protests started in September 2012 - mass killings of opponents by him were known about before that, and killings, torture and persecution of members the Kurdish population date back to the mid 2000's
Human rights abuses by Assad was well known long before the sale of sniper rifle bullets and chemicals were sanctioned
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 02:43 PM

Thank you for that accurate answer Teribus.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 02:26 AM

Not Guilty eh?

my question:

Who was it that said Britain had supplied Assad with Sniper Rifles? - YOU did Jom

Keith did not say that he had - Keith said "all YOU can come up with is some sniper rifles" - an error which he admitted to - but an error that came from a poorly written article introduced as evidence by you in order to support your argument. But please correct me if I am in error here but it was you who then went on the next day to state quite clearly:

"the horrors of Homs brought about by sniper rifles sold by Britain - specifically for use on the civilian population"

Now I don't know how you would classify that statement of yours but I would call it a lie. No sniper rifles were ever purchased from Britain. Unlike Keith you however were not prepared to admit your error.

Please tell me Jom that licence for the small arms ammunition - did it state a value? It did didn't it? IIRC it was US$50,000 and for that Jom ould son once you pay for transportation and fees you would expect to get ~100,000 rounds of surplus Nato 7.62mm ammunition. Your newspaper article referred to the issuing of the licence and said nothing whatsoever about the sale ever going through, no record of any shipment has ever been produced. I do not believe that it ever was sent because the ammunition would be of little use to the Syrian Army or Police.

National Service?? So now you set yourself up as an expert on the Syrian Army and the rebel forces operating inside Syria. Hardly a credible stance as you seemed awfully eager to completely ignore the overwhelming evidence in links that showed that the Syrian Army use no US or UK weapons and that they purchase their arms from Russia, China and Iran.

The Syrian armed forces are based on a system of universal conscription of all males aged 18 the service obligation is 18 months so 2009 + 18 months brings us to the summer of 2010 - ah but according to military expert Jom all snipers are drawn from the ranks of specially trained crack troops - really? Well snipers are specially trained but as a specialisation they form part of every infantry unit - so although specially trained they are not part of any special corps within the army.

Now how are you so certain that those men trained in 2009 are not part of the numbers who have defected from the Syrian Army? Answer to that of course is that you can't be - you have no information to base your assumption on, but just for the record the following desertions took place:

Late 2011 - 10,000
March 2012 - 60,000 (20,000 in one month alone)
June 2012 - State of Civil War now achieved according to UN Head of Peacekeeping (never achieved in either Iraq or in Afghanistan) by this stage as well as many junior officers, the deserters now include 40 Brigadier Generals.
June 2013 - 73 senior officers and their families desert including 7 Generals and 20 Colonels who estimated that Syrian Army strength including conscripts stood at 280,000 - but of that number Assad could not mobilise all the forces available to him for fear of large scale defections to the rebel cause.

Did Britain supply weapons used to kill people in Homs in 2011 - No it did not.

Did Britain supply the Assad regime with weaponry period - No it did not.

And unless you can prove conclusively that it did Jom - not inferences in newspaper articles, not rumours or slurs - proof, evidence, then all you are doing is airing your own biased views and bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 07:41 AM

Assad reported to be using "vacuum bombs" against civilians.

"While the world tries to bring Syria's chemical weapons under control, government forces are killing civilians with other extremely powerful weapons," said Priyanka Motaparthy, Middle East child rights researcher at Human Rights Watch."