BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:12 AM

"I haven't claimed they have been used" Oh yes you have "Impartial" Jom:

1: you still defend Britain's trading chemical weapons to the country with;
"One of the worst human rights record in the world, second only to Korea"

Jom – BS: chemical weapons in Syria – 13/09/13

What chemical weapons did Britain send to Syria?
None in 2013
None in 2012 – the existing export licences were revoked by the British Government to stop precisely what you accuse them of
Between 2004 and 2010 roughly 4,150kg in five different shipments to two companies not associated with the production of any weaponry of any kind in quantities that matched the manufacturing output of those companies.

2: Britain and America historically have bee the world's leading arms suppliers for terrorist states - including Syria and their supplies have included chemical weapons

Jom – BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria – 15/09/13

World's leading terrorist states over the last 40 years:

North Korea – supplied by China and Russia
Iraq – Supplied by Russia, China & France
Libya – Supplied by Russia
Syria – Supplied by Russia
Iran – Supplied by Russia and China

Now Russia and China manufacture chemical and biological warfare agents and the specialized warheads required to deploy them – Britain and America do not, so your contention that the UK and the USA have supplied Syria with any weapons let alone chemical weapons is a complete and utter crock.

3: You continue to claim this - you have yourself along with Mudcat's self appointed weapons expert, identified "MERELY" sniper rifle bullets, (though you hastily changed your mind when you realised how stupid you had been)
You have tried to pass off chemical components for saran as "harmless" - the fact that Britain only withdrew the licences when they were told to by the UN rules is immaterial - they sell weapons to monsters.

The export licence for 7.62mm rifle ammunition that was issued in, when was it 2009? Which no-one has yet proved resulted in a sale or an actual shipment? The chemical components of most things taken in isolation can be perfectly harmless or deadly – they only become chemical weapons however when they are purchased or manufactured with the express intent of being combined with other ingredients to form a substance specifically designed to cause injury and death according to the CWC.
What UN rules are you talking about – Keith has quite rightly corrected you on this blunder of yours – there are no UN rules on this – there are EU rules that the UK were instrumental in putting in place and it was in conformance with those EU rules that licences were revoked before any order could be shipped.

4: The updte was the fact that sales of the saran chemical ??? have been going on for six years, the last sale was de-licensed - the earlier ones took plave therefore the recent gas attack was almosst certainly carried out using BRITISH SUPPLIED COMPONENTS
Really what certainty exists? – For a fact you don't even know if one single milligram of sodium fluoride imported into Syria from the UK between 2004 and 2010 went into the manufacture of anything other than for its stated purpose.

5: "Britain has known of Assad's behavior for as long as it has been going on, it was reported to them by amnesty, yet they continued to sell armoured cars, tear gas, and no, as it transpires, materials for chemical weapons (not forgetting your "sniper rifles of course)"

Right then Jom below is a list that takes you to what the Ba'athist regime in power in Syria has bought in terms of weaponry over the past few decades please enlighten us as to what items were purchased and supplied by either the UK or the USA (I think that Syria got more than just a little pissed off with both the UK and the USA in the summer of 1967).

Assad's Army's weapons

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:17 PM

Er, LAUNCH???

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 11:53 AM


And you can show any of this garbage to be fact, can you

You certainly can find nothing to prove British products were used for weapons, but I can substantiate that they have not.
It was a big story just that licences were issued.
If it went for weapons, a lowly clerk in the department would have whistleblown by now.
The story would be huge, with ministerial resignations.
None of that has happened Jim, because it is bollocks.

Since when - four days ago when it was updated in the Daily Mail

That is either a stupid mistake or a lie Jim.
It was published on the 7th and last updated on the 8th.
Link again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415081/Britain-sent-poison-chemicals-Assad-Proof-UK-delivered-Sarin-agent-Syrian-regime

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 11:41 AM

"British companies sold chemicals to Syria that were then used"
Selling potentially of use to a mass-murderer is implicating Britain in a war crime.
Are you saying it's ok because he may or may not have used them yet?
"Personally I see quite a major difference in the statements - can't you?"
Not really - I haven't claimed they have been used, but they might have been and it is possible that, should the negotiations fail, he still has them for future use
What on earth is your point - or didn't your intensive training take you that far my little termite?
"Assad didn't start slaughtering his fellow citizens with his stockpile of Russian weaponry until March 2011."
You know more than I do then - where did he get the equipment he has been using to torture and suppress his people over the last couple of decaades then - we know of his human rights and abuses record - his torture chambers, his 'dissapearing' of his opponents - it ewas all covered in the Amnesty report on Syrian human rights abuses.
You raised the same point then - "did we have a crystal ball" was your exact wording.
Britain has known of Assad's behavior for as long as it has been going on, it was reported to them by amnesty, yet they continued to sell armoured cars, tear gas, and no, as it transpires, materials for chemical weapons (not forgetting your "sniper rifles of course)- and it has announced that it will continue to trade with whoever wins now - "British Trade must not be affected by the trouble" - remember my little terrapin?
Why is it necessary to point out the same thing over and over again to you morons - or have I just answered my own question?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 11:31 AM

1: "Mr Cable has come under fire in recent days over two licences granted in January 2012 for the export of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride to Syria. The licences were revoked in July 2012 after EU sanctions were tightened, and the Business Department has said that none of the chemicals were shipped out."

2: "The House of Commons Committees on Arms Exports Control (CAEC) released a letter from Mr Cable detailing five further licences for sodium fluoride totalling 4,150kg (4.2 tons)"

3: "I asked my officials to determine whether any other licences for chemicals had been granted for Syria over the last ten years.

"They identified five other licences, all for sodium fluoride, issued in July 2004, September 2005, March 2007, February 2009 and May 2010 (for, respectively, 50kg, 2000kg, 50kg, 2000kg and 50kg).

"These licences all predate the conflict in Syria. They were issued to two UK exporters for dispatch to two Syrian companies. I am confident that each application was properly assessed to determine end use and that the exports were for legitimate commercial purposes, namely cosmetics and health care products. The volumes of sodium fluoride covered by these licences are consistent with commercial use.

4: ""I want to assure you there is no evidence that exports of chemicals from the UK have been deployed in Syrian weapons programmes and I have determined that there has been no breach of controls or international obligations. The Government remains confident that UK export controls continue to be among the most stringent in the world."

All of that appeared in a newspaper Jom - now what makes your newspaper more believable? Now as far as stringency relating to things that kill people go Jom, we are certainly a damned sight more stringent than the Russians who are just about to be made to appear complete and utter fools by Bashar Al-Assad - the Russians won't mind too much as their man will remain in place with his chemical weapons intact and they [The Russians] will keep their naval base.

Any reason do you think why the Russians have not made public all this compelling evidence that Bashar Al-Assad said he had regarding "rebel" responsibility for the attacks on the 21st August? My guess is because the Russians know that when it comes to rigging evidence the Syrians ain't too smart, but the UN weapons inspectors are and any "evidence" from ol' Bashar's side is not going to withstand critical evaluation and analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 11:03 AM

One small point Jom "The Impartial":

Since when did -

"British companies sold chemicals to Syria that could have been used to produce the deadly nerve agent that killed 1,400 people

Translate itself into:

"British companies sold chemicals to Syria that were then used to produce the deadly nerve agent that killed 1,400 people

Personally I see quite a major difference in the statements - can't you? You seem to read one and immediately jump to conclusions without a shred of evidence.

Also:

Since when did -

"Between July 2004 and May 2010 the Government issued five export licences to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, which IS used to make sarin."

Translate itself into:

"Between July 2004 and May 2010 the Government issued five export licences to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, which WAS used to make sarin.

Same thing again.

What else is needed to manufacture Sarin Jom?

EU ban on trade with Syria came into force when Jom? I think that you will find that it came into effect late in May 2013 - so pray tell why shouldn't British companies have traded with Syria during the period July 2004 to May 2010? Assad didn't start slaughtering his fellow citizens with his stockpile of Russian weaponry until March 2011.

Weapon responsible for more deaths in Syria than any other? AK-47, AK-74 made by?? - Yep got it in one Russia, who are still sending them in by the shipload even as we type.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:42 AM

And you can show any of this garbage to be fact, can you
"You can make swords or ploughshares out of iron."
Can we assume that you no longer approve of Israel's blockade on essential fertilizer - in my hole we can!!
And Syria is only one of the countries visiting Britain's Arms Shop
"That is why you can find nothing on it since."
Since when - four days ago when it was updated in the Daily Mail - I suggest you look up British local press coverage of it at present.
Jim Carroll

July, this year – as out of date as 8 weeks old – tut-tut
"BRITISH GOVT. ENCOURAGES CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE IN BAHRAIN, SYRIA
BY FINIAN CUNNINGHAM
Official data provided by the London-based Campaign Against the Arms Trade shows that the British government approves hundreds of export licenses for the supply of weapons to the Bahraini regime. Britain continues to approve of this trade with Bahrain even though it earlier said that it would suspend the supply of weapons when reports of repression emerged during 2011."
Little Sajida Faisal had only just come into this world. But five days after her birth, she was dead, killed by suffocation from tear gas. She died on 11 December, a Sunday, in 2011 in her family home in the Bahraini village of Belad al-Qadeem.
Her father later told how Bahraini riot police had been firing tear gas into the streets for several days without stop. The whole village was under a toxic cloud of chemical gas, and with military checkpoints everywhere, the residents of Belad al-Qadeem were effectively held hostage, forced to breathe in the deadly fumes.
The family tried their best to shield the baby from the smoke seeping into the home. Her mother dabbed Sajida's face with water and that of her older sister, three-year-old Sarah. But it was no good. Sajida's father said the newborn baby's skin began to turn blue and then she died. He managed to get past the checkpoints hemming in the village to rush the infant to the hospital. But it was too late. The doctor confirmed that the baby girl had died from suffocation. Even if she had survived, the doctor said the lack of oxygen would probably have left her brain-damaged.
Ever since that day, Sajida's family has been living with the pain of her horrible death. That pain is compounded because the Bahraini regime wrote in the official death certificate that the cause was bacterial meningitis." Of course, the regime is lying. To say "suffocation from tear gas fired by Bahraini police" would be admission of the crimes against humanity that the civilians of Bahrain have been subjected to, ever since they began protesting for the democratic overthrow of the Al Khalifa monarchy in mid-February 2011.
According to records kept by the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, over the past two years at least half of the total deaths caused by the Bahraini regime security forces have resulted from tear gas suffocation. The very young, elderly and infirmed are most at risk.
There is little doubt that the excessive use of toxic chemicals is a deliberate policy of repression. The repression is aimed at "collectively punishing" the civilian, mainly Shia, population who have steadfastly supported the pro-democracy movement against the unelected Sunni royal rulers. Typically, the riot police do not limit their deployment of tear gas to disperse protesting youths on the streets. Regime forces routinely fire inordinate numbers of canisters into surrounding streets, with the effect of saturating whole villages and districts of the capital, Manama, with toxic fumes. The following day, entire skip-loads are filled up with the empty gas canisters swept off the streets by residents.
But the misconduct of regime forces is even more sinister. In addition to indiscriminate blanketing of neighborhoods, there are reported incidents of police officers breaking windows or doors and firing gas canisters into homes.
The excessive use of toxic gas in civilian areas goes hand-in-hand with house raids by the regime. In the past two weeks, Bahraini police have stepped up warrant-less arrests against dozens of civilians in villages across the Persian Gulf island. The raids have been accompanied by even greater use of tear gas. This week, the latest victim of suffocation from the gas was Saeed Marzouq, 55, who died while regime forces raided his village of Diraz. The village is seen as particularly supportive of the Shia-led pro-democracy movement and has been subjected to intense repression.
Ironically, in this same week, the British foreign secretary William Hague announced that his government would be sending protective gas masks abroad. Not to Bahraini civilians, but to Syria. Moreover, the British equipment to protect against toxic chemicals is not being sent to Syrian civilians, but to the foreign mercenaries fighting a covert war on behalf of Britain, the US and France and their Persian Gulf Arab allies to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. Consistent reports show that it is the Western-backed mercenaries in Syria who have been using chemical weapons against civilians to leverage their objective of terrorizing the population into relinquishing support for the Damascus government.
n official Russian report last week concluded that the Western-backed militants are using unguided rockets crudely fitted with chemical warheads, including the deadly nerve agent Sarin. These weapons are banned under international law. Therefore, their use is a war crime.
Perversely, the British government is intending to send gas masks to al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups - whom the British claim to be pro-democracy rebels - even though the evidence is growing that it is these groups who are guilty of wielding chemical weapons. If that responsibility is proven, then that makes the British government and its other Western allies indictable for complicity in war crimes in Syria.
That would add to similar indictable crimes that the British government is already complicit in, in Bahrain. Fittingly, there is a logical pattern here. In Syria, the British government is supporting militants using chemical weapons to sabotage democracy, while in Bahrain the British government is supporting a regime that is also using chemical weapons to sabotage democracy, or at least efforts to
establish democracy.
The description of "tear gas" may sound legitimate, but in the case of pandemic use against civilians in Bahrain it is far from legitimate. Tear gas or CS gas is officially meant for sparing use to fend off rioting crowds. These gases are highly toxic when used at saturation levels and especially in enclosed places, such as homes. In practice, therefore, the way in which these toxic materials are used in Bahrain in civilian residences constitutes a chemical weapon of mass destruction. Such use is a violation of international laws banning the use of chemical weapons, which makes it a crime against humanity.
As in Syria, the British government stands accused of crimes against humanity from the use of chemical weapons in Bahrain. Official data provided by the London-based Campaign Against the Arms Trade shows that the British government approves hundreds of export licenses for the supply of weapons to the Bahraini regime. Britain continues to approve of this trade with Bahrain even though it earlier said that it would suspend the supply of weapons when reports of repression emerged
during 2011.
Among the hundreds of items of weaponry sold to Bahrain from Britain are the following: CS gas, riot-control irritants, smoke generators, smoke canisters, smoke ammunition, stun grenades, "toxins", and smoke grenades.
This trade with Bahrain is in spite of the stated British policy that it "does not supply weapons to countries where such arms could be used for internal repression".
A British parliamentary committee on arms control this week reported that Britain supplies weapons to 27 countries which its own foreign office has listed for concern over human rights. The top two recipients of British weapons in the list of 27 - comprising more than 90 percent of a $19 billion annual trade - are Israel and Saudi Arabia. These two regimes are indictable for war crimes and crimes against humanity and yet they are both armed to the teeth by Britain.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, Britain supplies among other tools of repression: armored cars, crowd-control ammunition, tear gas, smoke grenades and stun grenades. For more than two years, since March 2011, British-equipped Saudi forces have been present in Bahrain to shore up the Khalifa regime. Saudi military dressed as Bahraini riot police accompany Bahraini officers during their deadly raids on Shia villages where families are on a daily basis poisoned in their own homes. The probable fact is that little baby Sajida Faisal was killed by forces wielding toxic gas made in and sold by Britain. Her death along with dozens of innocent Bahrainis in a very real way originates from toxic political decisions made in London.
The criminal use of chemical weapons of mass destruction by irregular militants in Syria and by regular security forces in Bahrain has a common denominator: both are supported by the British government to kill democratic freedom.
FC/SS"
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/07/18/314453/britains-toxic-crimes-in-bahrain-syria/

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:29 AM

You can make swords or ploughshares out of iron.
Imports to Syria were only allowed if a peaceful and safe end use was proved.
The chemicals were capable of misuse, but were not misused.
Now that has been established, even the Daily Mail has dropped it.

That is why you can find nothing on it since.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:09 AM

Not refuted - denied - produce your proof that it didn't happen

How ithers see us - from the US

Saturday, September 7, 2013
Britain Sold Nerve Gas Chemicals to Syria
Oh, a little lax security controls there, you think?
Here's the front-page story at tomorrow's Daily Mail, "Britain sent poison gas chemicals to Assad: Proof that the UK delivered Sarin agent to Syrian regime for SIX years":
British companies sold chemicals to Syria that could have been used to produce the deadly nerve agent that killed 1,400 people, The Mail on Sunday can reveal today.
Between July 2004 and May 2010 the Government issued five export licences to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, which is used to make sarin.
The Government last night admitted for the first time that the chemical was delivered to Syria – a clear breach of international protocol on the trade of dangerous substances that has been condemned as 'grossly irresponsible'.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:41 AM

The claims have all been refuted and no-one has been able to refute the refutation so that is it.
There is no story and never was.

(or have you found a recent report Jim?)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:36 AM

"You saying it over and over does not make it true Jim."
No, but all the reports that they have does make it true, and your continuing to junk those reports makes you a fanatical moron - Britain has been supplying chemicals that are essential to the manufacture of chemical weapons for at least six years if you, or that nice Mr Cable says it is not so, disprove the evidence that has provoked all the accusations that they have - easy as that
Denials by politicians are more likely to confirm that they have
I totally agree with Bobad's posting -= what the **** is Britain doing dealing with these animals in the first place - they knew what a monster he was - and they still want to continue exporting to Syria whan this is all over?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:01 AM

Britain caught red-handed NOT flogging them, or any other weapons.
You saying it over and over does not make it true Jim.
There was no basis to the story, and it is dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:53 AM

Few thought that the Syrian regime's promise to destroy its chemical weapons would be the end of the story. Brigadier-General Zaher al-Saket, a former chemical weapons chief in President Bashar al-Assad's own army, certainly did not.

Brig Gen Saket says he was ordered three times to use chemical weapons against his own people, but could not. He insists that all such orders had to come from the top — President Assad himself — despite insistent denials by the regime that it has never used chemical weapons. He also claims to have his own intelligence that the Syrian president is evading the terms of a Russian-brokered deal to destroy the chemical weapons by transferring some of the stocks to his allies; Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Iran.

Brig Gen Saket spoke to The Sunday Telegraph, his first interview with a Western newspaper, as Mr Assad confirmed for the first time what he, and much of the rest of the world already knew, that the regime has a huge arsenal of chemical weapons, and the delivery systems to go with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:46 AM

"Where on earth did you get this fact that Syria only got into chemical
weapons six years ago?"
That is the date given if previous links for the "establishment" of the present stockpiles of chemical weapons 'Colonel Sir' - no argument that they had them before but the present stocks were built up around the time Britain was caught red handed flogging them
Doesn't matter really - we sold them, Assad bought them end of story.
It is on this basis that Assad has suggested that the west pay for the removal of the stuff - "he who hides it, finds it"
Stick to light opera
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:24 AM

"Since that first DENIAL the fact that Britain has been selling this shit to Syria for six years, from the time she began developing her massive chemical weapons industry - THIS IS A FULLY ACCEPTED FACT AND HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT - IT IS NEW NEWS AND IS NOT OUT OF DATE"

Jom you wouldn't recognise a fact if it jumped up and bit you.

Where on earth did you get this fact that Syria only got into chemical weapons six years ago? Or is that just something that you decided to make up?

Under the CWC there is nothing to prevent any country carrying out research and development in the field of chemical research provided that it is for peaceful purposes. There is nothing under the terms of the CWC to prevent countries manufacturing chemical warfare agents and biological cultures in order to carryout research into defensive measures to counter weaponised versions of those agents and cultures

An NGO has published a report detailing the 12 greatest "killers" in terms of weapons in Assad's inventory in Syria - Responsible for killing ~72,000 of the estimated 180,000 killed so far (Iraq over 8 years killed ~150,000 - 78% of those killed by fellow Iraqis) - Of the 12 types of weapon identified TEN of them were supplied by Russia and as for the remaining 2 (one Egyptian and one Chinese) both were copies of Russian systems.

The CWC was created in 1993 and the Syrian Government did not sign it so we know with a high degree of certainty that Syria has possessed chemical weapons since that date.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:18 AM

7th September is not last week.
The claims have all been refuted and no-one has been able to refute the refutation so that is it.
There is no story and never was.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:10 AM

And that's it - Vince said he didn't do it - "and Vincent is an honourable man"
No Keith you have last week's "updated" Mail On Line report which says Britain has been selling chemicals to Syria for six years - you find a more recent report than that.
BRITAIN HAS BEEN SELLING SYRIA THE WHEREWITHAL TO MAKE CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOR SIX YEARS - NO news TO YOU OBVIOUSLY, BUT THAT IS THE STORY TO DATE. WE HAVE YET TO LEARN EXACTLY WHAT ELSE BRITAIN HAS SOLD THIS MURDEROUS BASTARD OVER THE DECADES WE HAVE BEEN TRADING WITH HIM - WATCH THIS SPACE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 07:55 AM

Find a recent report about it then Jim.
There is no story.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 06:31 AM

"Since September 7th, Vince Cable rubbished all those claims and the story is dead."
Vince Cable said the latest sale was for non-military purposes only - we all know tat the Syrians would bend over backwards to make sure that was the case
I assume you shows that Cable "rubbished" the reports - a politician who has consistently admitted selling arms to despots DENIED hat he had sold chemical components.
You are as moronic as Cable thinks we are to suggest this is "proof" of anything for Christr's sake - what king of eejits do you take us for?
Since that first DENIAL the fact that Britain has been selling this shit to Syria for six years, from the time she began developing her massive chemical weapons industry - THIS IS A FULLY ACCEPTED FACT AND HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT - IT IS NEW NEWS AND IS NOT OUT OF DATE

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 05:19 AM

Since September 7th, Vince Cable rubbished all those claims and the story is dead.

Final sentence of Jim's old Daily Mail piece.
7th September.

"Last night a BIS spokesman said: 'The five licences were granted to two UK exporters. We cannot publish their names for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The end users were two Syrian commercial companies.
'The quantities of sodium fluoride involved were commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons programme. This remains the case.'

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 04:32 AM

No it was not - the report that Britain has been selling sarin chemicals to Syria appeared in the Daily Mail a fewwdays ago - you have it on this tread
What particularly is the line you are peddling
Britain did not sell chemicals to Syria?
Those chemicals are not essential to the production of sarin?
It is ok to sell chemical weapon producing to monsters like Assad
All have been dealt with - all have been established beyond doubt
All have been accepted worldwide
What's your point - are you claining that we should ignore Britain's part in arming the Syrian regime and pretend it was all down to Russia and China - what????
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 03:44 AM

No Jim.
The accusation was made, but it was comprehensively rubbished and the story died weeks ago.
Except in your mad head Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 03:40 AM

"im, since those outdated accusations were made, it is now known that a peaceful end use had to be proved for any import."
Absolute nonsense
Britain has been exporting Chemicals for weapons for six years
That fact has been reported throughout the world
Sodium fluoride is an essential component of sarin weapons that is what Britain has sent to Syria - the regime has just gassed its people with sarin and hopefully will be tried and convicted od that war crime
Britain was thier accomplice by selling the shit
How out-of-date can that possibly be?
Make an effort to make your case if you are going to support these atrocities
And stop debasing this forum with your lies - you have my and Don's position on this matter - give your own honestly rather than "Britain is innocent" - she isn't and the world knows that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 03:21 AM

String, NYT 1993.
Scientists working with human rights groups said that, using advanced chemical analysis, they had found residues of mustard and nerve gases used against a Kurdish village in northern Iraq in 1988, an action the Iraqi Government continues to deny.

Eric Stover, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, a Boston-based group that investigates human rights violations, and others said at a news briefing here that poison gases do not survive long in the environment and that physical evidence of their use is often gone within weeks. A Search for Byproducts

However, by using advanced analytical techniques that looked for minute byproducts of the chemical weapons in soil, scientists said they were able to find conclusive evidence that the chemicals were used. They said their tests confirmed the use of mustard gas, a blistering agent that burns the skin and mucous membranes, and a nerve gas called sarin, which can cause convulsions and death by suffocation.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 02:13 AM

Jim, since those outdated accusations were made, it is now known that a peaceful end use had to be proved for any import.
Also sodium flouride is a very low value commodity.

String, Assad senior was also armed by Russia, like all the states at war with Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 02:04 AM

Don, I have no prejudices and have never expressed any.
You can accuse but never produce.
I did support Obama's limited action to deter more gassings.
That does not make me gung ho.
Jim wants intervention on the ground!
This is the post you really can not forgive me for Don.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 03:00 AM

"The figures regarding blame in London are suspect, to say the least, given that any cyclist causing a collision and lucky enough to avoid injury"

The figures are accepted as reliable except only by you Don.
No-one else has ever heard of a collision caused by but not involving cyclists.
You claim to personally know of five.
That is because you are a liar and make stories up to make your case.

You tell a ludicrous story of sending a cyclist to hospital with your stick.
You claim he was fined for "furious riding"
Such a charge is extremely rare and always reported on.
The last one in Kent was in 19th Century.
Furious Riding has to involve injury to a pedestrian.
You forgot to make up the injured pedestrian Don.

You foolish, foolish man.
You make a liar of yourself to make a pathetic point on a miniscule Mudcat spat.
Twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:02 PM

"This thread is about Syria, armed by Russia and China, and not about the global arms trade."
This thread is about whatever any contribution any member of this forum chooses to believe relevant to wwhat is happening in Syria - hardly any of your senile contributions have mentioned the CIA so how ******* dare you tell us to restrict our input to what you have virtually ignored throughout this thread when you are at a loss for a response to facts, you dictatorial little shit.This thread is perfectly within the bounds of discussing a chemical attack by Assad using materials supplied by Britain as well as any other nation who chooses to wallow in the arms trade.
BRITAIN HAS BEEN SELLING CHEMICALS ESSENTIAL FOR MANUFACTURING SARIN WEAPONS FOR SIX YEARS
STOP MANIPULATING THREADS AND ATTEMPTING TO DEPRIVE THE REST OF US OF OUR SAY
Fascist - I couldn't begin to match your behaviour on this forum, you little jackbooter you!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 02:48 PM

"String, why does the exact death toll in Damascus matter?
It was a devastating attack resulting in many deaths including kids.
In Iraq we do know that sarin and mustard were used.
Why not check these things before pontificating?"

The answer of course is that I don't trust your sources. Who is this "we" that knows so much?

"I think you should start a thread about the international trade in arms."

It's common knowledge that the US and Israel are trading in arms internationally. This is a chief export of both countries.

Who originally armed Assad Sr. before Assad Jr. took over? Why the sudden turn of interest now after both Assads have been committing atrocities for years? Sarin gas is just one of the terrible weapons that have been used in Syria. US drones are equally as harmful used in other countries. The US, India, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia all have nuclear weapons far more capable of lethal destruction of many human lives more than sarin. Why have they decided that these weapons should be kept? If anyone attacks the US with nuclear weapons, there is no defense that makes any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 02:32 PM

""Don...That is disgraceful conduct.""

In your opinion Ake, as one wo has expressed some pretty unpleasant opinions!

Given a close acquaintance with the despicable prejudices of the man, from his posts about Northern Ireland, British Pakistanis (or BPs, as he would prefer to dehumanise them), Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular, combined with his syophantic obsession with all things Israeli, and his gung ho attitude to military interference in soveeign states, I think the comment I made was both justified and over lenient.

I stand by what I said.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 11:19 AM

This thread is about Syria, armed by Russia and China, and not about the global arms trade.
You are such a fascist Jim.
By what right do you decide that it has to be yet another thread about how much Jim hates Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:30 AM

"This thread is about Syria, who is armed by Russia and China."
Pissw off with your thread drift - this is entirely about arms - including Britain and her chemical weapons components
And stop telling people what and what we shouldn't be discussing when you run out of answers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:26 AM

From last week'sTimes
Jim Carroll

NO DOUNTS, BUT ASSAD CAN CARRY ON KILLING
Anthony Lord
Commentary


The Syrian war's mid-term future and the survival of the Assad regime has been decided as much by the timing of yesterday's UN report into the chemical attack in Damascus as by its contents.
Though stopping short of decisively laying blame for the attack on the regime, in its every detail the report suggests beyond reasonable doubt that sarin nerve agent was used and that the regime was responsible. Yet had the finding been released in time to influence parliamentary debate on Britain's intervention — itself a fulcrum event that shaped President Obama's hesitation in launching strikes— punitive military action might have already occurred.
The report's timing has instead dealt a new hand to every player at the diplomatic table, though at the expense of Syrian civilians.
President Assad's survival has been guaranteed, for the while at least, and he can continue to wage war using the same conventional weapons that have killed the vast majority of the 100,000 dead so far.
Russia, Iran and China can feel relief that their ally—whose continued tenure of power is now a default necessity by which to implement the Geneva deal—has bounced back in strength.
In the meantime, Israel, America and Europe, deeply worried as much by the possibility that Syrian chemical weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic radicals as that they may be used again by the regime, may now address those concerns.
The strength of wording in the Security Council resolution being drafted to back the Geneva plan will decide the strategies of each of these players. What it will not influence, though, is the emerging strategic threat posed by thousands of al-Qaeda-linked militants in the country, possibly the greatest conglomeration of radical militants since Afghanistan in the Taleban era.
Nor is it likely to affect the fate of Syria's population, who will continue to face the ravages of war, the rockets, missiles and bullets that allow them to be killed each day in the conventional way.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:20 AM

I think you should start a thread about the international trade in arms.
You clearly have strong views on that subject, and I am sympathetic to them myself.
This thread is about Syria, who is armed by Russia and China.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 09:08 AM

You continue to ignore every point made and hide behind the behavior of others
BRITAIN IS THIRD IN THE LEAGUE OF ARMS SUPPLIERS IN THE WORLD TODAY. RUSSIA, WHO HAS NOW "SHAKEN OFF THE CHAINS OF COMMUNISM", TOOK OVER AS THE LEADING ARMS TRADING NATION. BRITAIN'S CUSTOMERS INCLUDE SOME OF THE MOST UNDEMOCRATIC REGIMES AND OPPRESSIVE REGIMES IN THE WORLD; DESPITE EFFORTS TO REMOVE THOSE REGIMES BRITAIN HAS CONTINUED TO SELL THESE THUGS ARMS AND HAS CONTINUED TO HOLD ARMS FAIRS TO ATTRACT EVEN MORE OF THEM.
TRADE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF BRITISH POLITICS, FAR MORE SO THAN HUMAN LIFE - LIVE WITH IT AS YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT OTHER THAT BLINDLY SUPPORT IT
Selling arms is a despicable trade whoever participates - as a British citizen it outrages ME that it is carried out in my and every other Britons name - you seem happy to accept that, but that's you, isn't it?
Good show. what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 07:23 AM


Britain has and continued to do so until the UN put a ban on it.

UN ban?
What UN ban Jim.
Please give details and explain why it does not apply to China and Russia.

There is an EU ban on supplying war materials.
UK was instrumental in getting it in place.
Good show, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 07:13 AM

Britain has and continued to do so until the UN put a ban on it.
You have had the information - you have had the opportunity to disprove it - you choose not to - speaks for itself.
"Have a go at them for a change."
I have and I do - the US is the second greatest arms trader in the world
Israel has sold chemical weapons to Iran
Whatever we might condemn we are answerable only to what our own governments do in our name.
The suggestion that trade boycotts would only harm the Syrian people is a mealy-mouthed excuse to go on trading with human rights abusers - far older than having been used to continuing to trade with the South African apartheid regime following the Sharpville and Soweto massacres.
It is merely an excuse not to use the only influence we have over monsters, yet Britain chooses to profit from them by trade - even to the extent of ignoring long term torture and murder - this is what the British government does in the name of the British people
It has been suggested by a defecting official that this is Assad'd Achilles heel - Britain has ignored it and you have chosen neither to defend or excuse their behaviour - you refuse even to comment on it
To suggest this us "anti British" is to allign the British people with the slimeball activities ofit's politicians, just as to describe criticism of Israel as "Anti Semitic" is to implicate all Jews with Israeli war crimes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:33 AM

I believe it.
Most countries have a budget for presenting themselves in a positive light.
Anti-Israel propaganda is rife.
This seems a harmless way to slightly redress the balance.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 06:24 AM

I do not believe anything unless I see it with my own eyes.
however my local paper The Southern Star which would appear to be independent as regards Jewish/ Arab conflict printed an article that suggested that the Israeli government were spending 778.000, as a propoganda campaign, the money was to be paid to impecunious student,they have to rewrite Iraeli government propoganda in a trendy accessible way and post it as letters to various papers.
Why would a southern irish newspaper be biased against the Israeli state?does anyone know the truth of this suggestion?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 05:42 AM

God only knows what else Britain has sold
Yes, and so does anyone else who wants to know.
It is all open and above board.
A peaceful end use had to be proved.

You have made it very clear once again that you hate Britain.
You use every thread as a platform to attack us.

Britain does not supply war material to Syria, but others do.
Have a go at them for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 03:43 AM

You have the detailed facts of chemicals essential for the making of Sarin weapons sold by Britain over six years - during the time that Assad began to establish his massive chemical weapons arsenal - of course, we can accept his word that he "only used it to produce to produce toothpaste, and, just like the Israeli regime, his word is his bond.
You also have the fact that Britain sold armoured cars, gas and other items of riot control gear to Assad at the beginning of the protests - you even gave your blessing on that one, suggesting that those sales should continue.
During your 'Homs Horror' weeping and wailing you identified the small arms ammunition which was licensed and sold by Britain to a customer in Syria as not just acceptable, but harmless ("only a few sniper rifles" were your exact words) - at a time when Assad's snipers were cutting down men, women and children on the streets of Homs.
It doesn't particularly matter whether your and your Chocolate Soldier friend were right in your estimation of exactly what was sold, as far as you were concerned they were sold and you had no problems with it.
God only knows what else Britain has sold to this long-known murderer and torturer down the years - we know we have promoted and supplied heavy and light weaponry to some of the most oppressive and undemocratic regimes on this planet and, while is has the active support of people like you, that will continue to be the case.
As the Defence Secretary said, and you have just ignored "Normal trade with Syria must be allowed to continue" - how d'ya like them pretty colours?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 03:36 AM

Keith, no one here condones the use of chemical weapons. The issue is that the way to achieve success is not through warmongering but diplomacy. This is Obama's best action.

I have no enthusiasm for a military strike, but as a lesser of evils it is better than the use of chemical weapons becoming acceptable.
I am prepared to trust the judgement of Obama and Hollande over that of the Tea Party and UKIP.
Do you really believe he would not give diplomacy another go if there was any hope of it achieving anything?

You all should have objected when he gave it as a red line, not waited for it to be crossed.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 01:45 AM

We do not supply weapons or any war materials.
The ordinary people of Syria trying to survive and make a living are not helped by stopping all trade.

Save your anger for those who provide the means of killing.

String, why does the exact death toll in Damascus matter?
It was a devastating attack resulting in many deaths including kids.
In Iraq we do know that sarin and mustard were used.
Why not check these things before pontificating?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 07:36 PM

"Did those here who oppose Obama's proposed intervention, object to him promising to act against the use of chemical weapons at the time?
Did they post here describing it as warmongering?
Stringsinger?"

Keith, no one here condones the use of chemical weapons. The issue is that the way to achieve success is not through warmongering but diplomacy. This is Obama's best action.

Now the question here is often referred to as a "conspiracy theory", a term that originated with the CIA to discredit anyone who questions the validity of some news reports.
Usually, the conspiracy theorist is not dogmatic as suggested but is merely asking for a reasonable conclusion that makes more sense such as why did Number 7 Tower come down on 911.

Is it possible that the CIA did plant sarin to achieve a political objective? Given the history of the CIA and MI6 it is a reasonable question to be asked.

" - 08:16 AM

"Incident 1: Tokyo subway attack at the height of the Tokyo rush hour where five separate trains were attacked some extremely well educated and intelligent "nutters" who manufactured their own Sarin managed to kill 13 people."

This may or may not be associated with attacks on Damascus.

"Incident 2: The attacks in Damascus on the 21st August 2013 killed 1429"

This figure has never been established to be accurate. Some say more, some less.

"Incident 3: In Iraq Saddam Hussein killed over 5,000 in one single attack in 1988"

Yes but was it sarin gas? Again a different incident and not related necessarily.

"The difference? In Tokyo the agent was home made, in Syria and in Iraq the agent was professionally manufactured, weaponised and delivered by a dedicated means purposely designed to cause the maximum amount of death and incapacity."

And what major countries in the world would be capable of this manufacture and its delivery? And how do you know which one?

To announce such an authoritative description and analysis would mean that the person in-the-know would have to be connected to an undercover agency such as the CIA otherwise this is just conjecture not based on known evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 01:23 PM

Despite the horrific behaviour of the Assad regime, and despite it being suggested by a defecting high official as long ago as during the Homs massacres that Britain should use the value Assad places on his relations with Britain the government was insisting that normal trading relations should continue with the regime.
As the article accurately points out, Britain places a higher value on Syria/British trade than it does on the lives of those being massacred.
Jim Carroll
   
"2nd September 2013
Hammond: Normal trade with Syria must continue
Normal trade with Syria must be allowed to continue, the Defence Secretary suggested today, as he defended the licensing of chemical exports to Syria.
Philip Hammond told MPs that chemical licenses sold to the Syrian regime before they were subsequently revoked in June 2012 were intended for use in "metal finishing activities"."

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-02/mps-to-question-why-uk-government-allowed-syria-chemical-deal-vince-cable/

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 12:54 PM

Keith
It was never more than a summing up of the government position.
You have had Cameron, Cable (and another minister - in connection with his excuse for selling chemical weapons - go look them up, you obviously haven't rqd them
Fact - the government places trade above human rights,
Fact - The government has traded with terrorist states for decades - Sri Lanka, Libya, Syria.... it even launched an arms fair when the Arab Spring demonstrations were into their first month.
You have been given this information over and over again - you attempted to claim the chemicals which we now to assisted Syria to build up its chemical weapons supply (sold to them for 6 years) as "harmless".
You made the same claim on another thread when you had been given a link to scientific journal describing these as "the main constituent of sarin weapons.
You have refused to respond to one single factual report you have been given.
Me obsessedd - yeah, right.   
Fact - the British Government has dragged the name of Britain into the shit by consistently selling weapons to some of the worst regimes on this planet - It is among the top five Countries in the world to do so.
Unless you have not read a single newspaper or journal, watched any television report or listened to them on the radio or read any of the links put in front of you (more than likely) you are well aware of this yet you are still describing revulsion at this policy as "obsessive", "anti-British", "thread-drift" or irrelevant to a discussion on Syria - are you really out of your mind?
In the past he value of even bothering with you and your rantings has been to allow you to expose yourself for the fanatical pratt you are; now it has become the mdern equivalent of going along to Moorfields to goad the patients
The fact that you seem to have not an iota of shame in your behaviour is pitiful - go away - you shame yourself and are an embarrassment.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 05:02 PM

Jim, here is your New Statesman link.
You and anyone else can see that Laurie Penny, "pop culture, politics and feminism" is speaking for herself and not quoting anyone.
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/08/there-are-too-many-bodies-buried-britains-moral-high-ground

yet another minister is also linked in connection with trying to explain away the sale of sarin producing chemicals - to be reasonably exact "Britain's trade with Syria must not be affected

If that is not made up, produce some evidence or stop wasting everyone's time you silly obsessed buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:08 PM

A little bedtime reading to pass away the waking hours - sorry it's so lomng and "boring" but it's an indication of just how long Britain has been selling chemical weapons to monsters, wnd to which particular breed of them
Jim Carroll

BRITAIN'S CHEMICAL BAZAAR: THE UK SELLS THE COMPONENTS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS TO SOME OF THE WORST REGIMES IN THE WORLD

9 June 2002
On August 20 1998 American missiles blew the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant on the outskirts of the Sudanese capital Khartoum to bits. The Clinton administration claimed the factory was making VX nerve gas - a lethal chemical weapon banned under international law.
Britain, in the form of Labour's then defense secretary George Robertson, supported the strikes, claiming there was 'compelling evidence' that the factory was producing chemical weapons.
Yet a Sunday Herald investigation has revealed that Britain is now selling chemicals to Sudan - and others among the most dangerous regimes on earth - which give them the capability to make weapons of mass destruction.
Among the countries to which Britain is selling chemical warfare technology is Iran - a regime labeled as part of the 'axis of evil' by President Bush.
Others include Libya - long seen by the west as a state sponsor of international terrorism; Israel - which is involved in one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent times; and Taiwan - a nation which has been on the brink of war with China for decades.
The sale of these chemicals is strictly controlled by the international chemical weapons convention, to which Britain is a signatory, and any sale to nations that may use them as a weapon of war is illegal. Libya, Israel and Taiwan are not signatories to the convention. Nor are Thailand and Syria, yet Britain sells them the technology.
Another customer is Jordan. Like Sudan, Jordan has signed the convention but not ratified it, making the treaty effectively meaningless for both governments. The other nations to which the UK deals chemicals are Cyprus, India, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen.
The products that Britain is selling to these nations are known as toxic chemical precursors (TCPs), a variety of chemicals which when combined with other compounds create weapons such as sarin - the nerve agent used in the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo cult's attacks on the Tokyo subway which killed 12 people - and mustard gas. These TCPs are known to chemists as dual-use chemicals. This means they can be used in harmless industries like agriculture or turned into weapons of mass destruction when mixed with other chemicals.
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which controls strategic exports, including all forms of armaments and components of chemical weapons, admitted that Britain was selling TCPs to 26 countries. It also admitted that there was no way they could be sure that the chemicals would not be used to manufacture weapons once they arrived at their destination.
Holland considers the sale of TCPs to countries like Sudan so dangerous that it has banned the trade in dual-use chemicals for both civilian and military application. Sudan has tried to buy TCPs from Dutch companies for use in fertilizer, but the Dutch ministry of economic affairs outlawed the transactions, saying it had 'indications that [the chemicals] might be used for other ends', including the manufacture of nerve gas.
A DTI spokesman said the chemicals were sold overseas 'under the belief' that they would be used 'benignly' for agricultural purposes or for use in detergents. 'If there are concerns about the end use of such chemicals we will closely look at export applications under the consolidated EU national arms export licensing criteria,' a spokesman said.
He added that the risk of recipient countries diverting TCPs into chemical weapons was closely assessed. The DTI said the main assurance it relied upon to trust foreign governments that they would not use TCPs bought from Britain for chemical weapons programs was 'an end user undertaking' -- amounting to a promise that the chemicals would be used for non-military means.
'We aim to minimize risk,' the DTI spokesman added, 'but obviously it is very difficult to say what happens to these things once they get to their final destination. It is impossible to clamp down 100%. It is impossible to know what happens to them in the stages that come after they leave Britain.'
Labour MP Ann Clywd, who sits on the commons international development select committee, the backbench human rights committee and the quadripartite committee on arms exports, said she will now press the Prime Minister in parliament to explain the government's policy on sales of chemical weapon technology to 'dubious regimes'.
'If chemicals are being sold to such regimes, questions need to be asked,' she said. 'The DTI's claims that it monitors such exports do not stand up to scrutiny. It is a myth that this takes place. Frankly, we have no idea what happens with these chemicals when they get to their final destination.
'If we are going to sell these things we have to be 100% sure what happens to them when they are sold. If we can't be sure, we shouldn't sell them.'
Clywd said the revelations about TCP sales meant that parliament should be given the power of scrutiny over arms exports. Members of the quadripartite committee on arms exports have recommended that MPs be allowed to scrutinize such sales, but the government has refused to grant these powers in the arms export bill now going through parliament.
'Without prior scrutiny there is no accountability,' she said. 'What we have now is a system operating on a very confused and skewed morality. The US gives elected representatives the power of scrutiny and Britain should move immediately in that direction.
'We don't know if we are aiding and abetting supposedly dodgy regimes in the development of weapons of mass destruction. At the moment that suspicion hangs over these sales. There are a lot of anomalies in our foreign policy and I, like many members of the public, am confused over what our government is doing.'
Professor Julian Perry Robinson, a chemist at the Science and Technology Policy Research Unit at Sussex University, said TCPs were the main constituent of chemical weapons. Robinson, who helped draft the chemical weapons convention and who is a member of its UK National Authority Advisory Committee, said: 'These findings ought to worry people, especially given the rather weak assurances from the DTI'.
Robinson explained that one TCP, thiodiglycol, could be turned into mustard gas by adding hydrochloric acid or ordinary household drain cleaner. He described another TCP, dimethyl methylphosphonate, as 'the perfect dual-use chemical'. By itself it can be used as a flame retardant, but if mixed with other chemicals it becomes the main ingredient of sarin nerve gas.
'Once you have your hands on dimethyl methylphosphonate you are well on the way to making sarin,' he said. 'Every single chemical warfare agent can be made from toxic chemical precursors.
'We need mechanisms in place to ensure these chemicals are not misused. Currently we rely on end-user certificates from the country concerned . But it is obvious that these countries can lie. It is impossible to say whether the current safeguards work.'
Robinson backed Clywd's call for parliament's right to scrutinize such export licenses, saying: 'We need more transparency in the present system'. He said the morality of the British government was now in question, given its rhetoric against repressive regimes, its claims to be running an ethical foreign policy and its support of the US in bombing Sudan's alleged chemical weapons compound. 'The ethics are twisted,' Robinson added. 'In the end, it seems that capital counts.'
Dr Mark Phythian, principal lecturer in politics at Wolverhampton University and the author of The Politics Of British Arms Sales, said: 'Such chemicals are sold with political approval. Any government would be hard pushed to say it didn't know the consequences of such sales, although it is hard to make sense of that policy in the present climate of concerns about terrorism and war.
'It appears this is an extension of our policy on the sale of conventional weapons. That is a policy of sustaining the UK's industrial base, protecting jobs in the weapons industry and maintaining our image as a global player in arms. The government's desire to maximize trade seems to be at odds with its rhetoric about security. History would suggest that to err on the side of trade over security is a very short-sighted policy.'
Alastair Hay, a professor of environmental toxicology at Leeds University's school of medicine and the biochemist who carried out the forensic tests that proved Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against Kurds in northern Iraq, said: 'It is a matter of real concern that we are selling these chemicals to countries which are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
'These nations are looking towards Britain as a supplier because they know we have a substantial pharmaceutical industry, there is a guaranteed supply, and the goods will be cheap and of good quality.
'Many TCPs have no other purpose other than the making of chemical weapons. It has to be considered as a real possibility that a country is buying these chemicals for allegedly innocuous reasons but planning to use them for lethal purposes.'
Richard Bingley, of Campaign Against the Arms Trade, said the sale of TCPs made it imperative that the end use of the chemicals be closely monitored to ensure they were not being used to create weapons of mass destruction. 'We don't even know that, if we sell these chemicals to a seemingly decent regime, they won't sell them on to a repressive and dangerous nation,' he said. 'Yet we've taken that a step further by actually selling these chemicals direct to repressive systems and nations which one day could use the chemical capabilities we gave them against Britain or our allies.'
Neil Mackay
Published in the Sunday Herald (Scotland) © 2002 SMG Sunday Newspapers Ltd

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0505.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 03:58 PM

You have been given the links along with the quotes - you obviously have no intention of attempting to defending he murderously predatory behaviour of Britain's arms industry in its continual dealings with Assad and others like him
Would lie to say David Irving would be proud of you, bu you can't even be bothered to make an effort - just denial - any moron.....
The only reason it is worthwhile even to keep posting as far as you are concerned is to allow you to dg yourself even deeper into the slime-pit which you apparently are happy to call home
Sweet dreams
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 03:58 PM

bobad: ""Mr Sellstrom confirmed that the quality of the sarin was superior both to that used in the Tokyo subway but also to that used by Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war," he told reporters."

Well, there are TWO more possibilities...'Iraq-Iran'. I already posted about the high ranking officer with the Iraqis, who said he oversaw the transfer...and then there is Iran....and of course, others, as well.
I don't think it is a foregone conclusion, as of yet..not matter what the speculation is, or who is doing the 'speculations'...bottom line, somebody is playing it close to the chest....and that could be ANYBODY!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 01:40 PM

yet another minister is also linked in connection with trying to explain away the sale of sarin producing chemicals - to be reasonably exact "Britain's trade with Syria must not be affected

Bollocks.
Another Jim Carrol fabrication - to be completely exact.