BS: chemical weapons in Syria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B~

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

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

They learned the folly of that in Libya.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The world has a responsibility to protect.

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

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

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

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

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

NO MORE GODDAMN WARS!

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

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

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

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

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

Does that seem plausible?

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

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

Here's the real deal...

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

B~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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