BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria

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: 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 - 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 - 04:42 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 - 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:06 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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,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: 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,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: 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
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: 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,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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.