BS: chemical weapons in Syria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want to talk about me, use pms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three words Mr. F

To what end?

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

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

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

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A good perspective Sandy McLean.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two words, Mr. T:

Black Ops.

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

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

Because in the time I spent in the forces:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1: Dispersal pattern and area covered

2: The fact that it did not linger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still think accidental detonation is the most reasonable scenario.

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

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

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

Why should action be taken because chemical weapons were used?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read slowly & aim for comprehension, eh?

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

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

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

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

Arab League calls for UN measures against Syria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there's the little problem of oil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methinks that you are drifting into minutia...

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
GfS