BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 07:41 AM

Assad reported to be using "vacuum bombs" against civilians.

"While the world tries to bring Syria's chemical weapons under control, government forces are killing civilians with other extremely powerful weapons," said Priyanka Motaparthy, Middle East child rights researcher at Human Rights Watch."

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 02:26 AM

Not Guilty eh?

my question:

Who was it that said Britain had supplied Assad with Sniper Rifles? - YOU did Jom

Keith did not say that he had - Keith said "all YOU can come up with is some sniper rifles" - an error which he admitted to - but an error that came from a poorly written article introduced as evidence by you in order to support your argument. But please correct me if I am in error here but it was you who then went on the next day to state quite clearly:

"the horrors of Homs brought about by sniper rifles sold by Britain - specifically for use on the civilian population"

Now I don't know how you would classify that statement of yours but I would call it a lie. No sniper rifles were ever purchased from Britain. Unlike Keith you however were not prepared to admit your error.

Please tell me Jom that licence for the small arms ammunition - did it state a value? It did didn't it? IIRC it was US$50,000 and for that Jom ould son once you pay for transportation and fees you would expect to get ~100,000 rounds of surplus Nato 7.62mm ammunition. Your newspaper article referred to the issuing of the licence and said nothing whatsoever about the sale ever going through, no record of any shipment has ever been produced. I do not believe that it ever was sent because the ammunition would be of little use to the Syrian Army or Police.

National Service?? So now you set yourself up as an expert on the Syrian Army and the rebel forces operating inside Syria. Hardly a credible stance as you seemed awfully eager to completely ignore the overwhelming evidence in links that showed that the Syrian Army use no US or UK weapons and that they purchase their arms from Russia, China and Iran.

The Syrian armed forces are based on a system of universal conscription of all males aged 18 the service obligation is 18 months so 2009 + 18 months brings us to the summer of 2010 - ah but according to military expert Jom all snipers are drawn from the ranks of specially trained crack troops - really? Well snipers are specially trained but as a specialisation they form part of every infantry unit - so although specially trained they are not part of any special corps within the army.

Now how are you so certain that those men trained in 2009 are not part of the numbers who have defected from the Syrian Army? Answer to that of course is that you can't be - you have no information to base your assumption on, but just for the record the following desertions took place:

Late 2011 - 10,000
March 2012 - 60,000 (20,000 in one month alone)
June 2012 - State of Civil War now achieved according to UN Head of Peacekeeping (never achieved in either Iraq or in Afghanistan) by this stage as well as many junior officers, the deserters now include 40 Brigadier Generals.
June 2013 - 73 senior officers and their families desert including 7 Generals and 20 Colonels who estimated that Syrian Army strength including conscripts stood at 280,000 - but of that number Assad could not mobilise all the forces available to him for fear of large scale defections to the rebel cause.

Did Britain supply weapons used to kill people in Homs in 2011 - No it did not.

Did Britain supply the Assad regime with weaponry period - No it did not.

And unless you can prove conclusively that it did Jom - not inferences in newspaper articles, not rumours or slurs - proof, evidence, then all you are doing is airing your own biased views and bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 02:43 PM

Thank you for that accurate answer Teribus.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 11:50 AM

Just interested - it becomes difficult to sort out which is real and which is invented with you pair of clowns.
"So who was it that introduced that blatant lie and total misrepresentation about sniper rifles into the Homs Horror thread?"
Sorry -not guilty.
The first mention of sniper rifles on the Homs thread, apart from those supplied by Gaddaffi which was discussed earlier in the thread was in your friend's response to a link to military equipment sales.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Feb 12 - 09:21 AM
"But why do you ONLY criticise Britain?
Not Russia.
Not China.
Not Syria.
Britain is hardly in the same league.
You have clearly been searching vigorously, but all you have come up with is some sniper rifles.
The only other "weapons" supplied were armour plated buses, tear gas and water cannon."
Throughout this discussion I have never mentioned "Sniper rifles" other than to point out Keith's dismissing them as being unimportant - I produced a link to "small arms ammunition" - no more. It was he who thought it to be sniper bullets and was happy to describe them as "but all you have come up with is some sniper rifles" - harmless little toys as they are!
Are you really suggesting that snipers training using the the 2009 delivery of "SNIPER RIFLE BULLETS" would not have been making use of that training 18 months later on the streets of Homs - you're a joke!
By the way, the link I produced referred only to a licence, which you first supported as being unimportant, then denied, then claimed they were cancelled - all without proof, of course!
"National Service" ?????
The reports coming out of Homs described the snipers as "specially trained crack troops" - regulars - have your powers of invention no limits??
By the way, Nowhere do any of the reorts mentioned "100,000 rounds" - not in my link, and as far as I know, nowhere in any official documents, but there are newspaper reports of "a delivery".
Perhaps your mates down the pub told you what the delivery consisted of - waddya think?
"nothing about Bashar Al-Assad being a Mass-Murderer,"
Just a tortured and a disappearer - he later promoted himself to mass murderer
The protests started in September 2012 - mass killings of opponents by him were known about before that, and killings, torture and persecution of members the Kurdish population date back to the mid 2000's
Human rights abuses by Assad was well known long before the sale of sniper rifle bullets and chemicals were sanctioned
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 08:28 AM

Other way round Keith. The Soviet/Russian 7.62mm round is short chamber ammunition (i.e. the cartridge is shorter than the Nato round)

AK-47 Round

NATO 7.62mm Round

I see JOM "The Impartial" has grabbed at the tail again and missed.

By the bye Jom you seem to have dodged my question:

Who was it that said Britain had supplied Assad with Sniper Rifles? - YOU did Jom

Who was it that told you they hadn't? - Keith A of Hertford

So who was it that introduced that blatant lie and total misrepresentation about sniper rifles into the Homs Horror thread? - YOU did Jom you little impartial rascal you.

That by the way was the point.

Now let me see what your next misrepresentation and wild leap is?

"if the ammunition supplied by Britain to Syria was used for target practice {Sorry your colours didn't work there for you Jom} Britain will have done their bit in Homs by making sure the snipers did their job properly."

Rather a large number of assumptions there aren't there Jom - like

1: Ammo if ever delivered at all was delivered in 2009 two years before the shooting started.

2: ~100,000 rounds IF DELIVERED would have all been used up within a year. You might possibly be capable of training up 11 men with that amount of ammo in that time.

3: Syrian National Service would mean that those trained in 2009 would not be present in the forces of the Syrian Army in 2011 - so the men trained in 2009 could well be fighting on the other side.

The Amnesty report talks about repression and lack of civil and human rights says nothing about Bashar Al-Assad being a Mass-Murderer, prior to March 2011 as you claim - His Dad, Hafaz, was though 10,000 to 55,000 killed on his orders at Hamma.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 08:27 AM

Is there any documented evidence to back these claims - these two have a long established history of inventing facts.
Jim Carroll
One of mny
http://globalsolutionspgh.org/2013/06/human-rights-in-syria-before-the-civilian-war/

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 06:08 AM

The Russian one is longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 05:56 AM

""whoever it was in Syria who was responsible for making this purchase realised that NATO 7.62mm ammunition is useless for Soviet or Russian weapons that fire Soviet or Russian 7.62mm rounds.""

I've no intention of joining this three cornered merry-go-round, but the statement above intrigued me.

Given that I know the Russians and NATO use the same calibre, what is the difference which prevents crossover?

I ask out of genuine curiosity Teribus.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 05:35 AM

What's your point - if the ammunition supplied by Britain to Syria was used for target practice (font color=red>AS YOU INSISTED VERY FIRMLY IT WAS ("IT WAS USED FOR PRACTICE - THEY TEND TO DO THAT SORT OF THING" Britain will have done their bit in Homs by making sure the snipers did their job properly.
The claims on the sales may have been made originally by civil servants, but they have been used over and over again by politicians to cover there arses for selling this shit to Assad in the first place.
You were given the Amnesty report at the time - you chose to ignore it then and you seem now to be pleading ignorance of it - it's a matter of record, but perhaps you would like to defend him?
I assume we are to hear no more about his squeaky clean reputation prior to the latest atrocities - thought not!
Everything esse is unqualified, blustering pseudo-militaristic bullshit - ever thought of entering for Mastermind as your specialist subject
By the way, I meant to thank you for putting your position in context - "Does the export of riot control gear manufactured in the UK bother me? No it does not - after all it will never be used on me if it is exported will it?"
Couldn't have put it better myself - keep up the goog work - disss - missss
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 03:18 AM

As promised in point 6 in my previous post:

Going back into the mists of time and the frothings of our Celtic Scouser:

Homs horror Thread:

"So you intend to continue to ignore the horrors of Homs brought about by sniper rifles sold by Britain - specifically for use on the civilian population (along with tear gas of course)." - Jim Carroll - Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:39 AM

Responded to as follows:

" Keith A of Hertford - Date: 14 Feb 12 - 01:54 PM
So you intend to continue to ignore the horrors of Homs brought about by sniper rifles sold by Britain
Britain has supplied no weapons to Syria.
Teribus was right.

Now then Jom who was it that {originally} claimed Britain sold sniper rifles to Syria specifically for use on the civilian population? Who was it said that they didn't?

Waiting for your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 03:01 AM

Any takers for 400?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 03:00 AM

Britain did trade with despots and killers

Which Arab states did not fall into that category Jim?
How many third world states do not?

It is hard enough for the the people forced to live under such regimes, without the world denying them any individual prosperity by refusing to trade with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 02:29 AM

Typical Jom - you always seize upon the tail and never manage to grab the dog.

Although you are making progress of sorts:

1: You at least now accept that what you introduce into debate and portray as "Reports" are now nothing of the sort - but oddly enough this step you take only when someone uses the information in those articles against you.

2: Last export licence granted by the British Government that resulted in an actual export was in May 2010. Details given of all chemical export licences issued in the UK that resulted in actual exports from the UK cover the period 2004 to 2010 - the amounts by weight have been verified and are now public knowledge and very well documented.

3: Claims were not made by politicians they were made by civil servants working for the BIS who - " defended the sale of the chemical to Syria, saying the amount was "commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons program."

4: What "Mass Murders" were perpetrated by Bashar Al-Assad prior to the start of this current conflict? Take no offence Jom but I most certainly am not simply going to take YOUR word for it considering your total inability to understand even simple sentences in English.

5: Yes - trade before all - we are a trading nation but we tend to temper that at times to our own disadvantage with more than a fair degree of common sense. Of the 180,000-odd Syrians killed so far in this conflict I would be inclined to believe that the vast majority (i.e. in the region of 99% of them) had been killed by one side or the other using Russian weaponry. Yet you witter on about tear gas?? You froth at the mouth at what might have been done with such and such without a shred of evidence to back up your wild accusations that you attempt to present as FACT.

6: No Jom your original claim was that British weapons were slaughtering Syrian civilians in Homs - I'll dig out the reference for it.

7: "Wasn't the British people who sell arms and chemicals to killers - just the Arnms Trade and our elected representatives"

Oh but Jom IT IS British people who make and sell the arms and chemicals to killers, all of them private citizens who put in eight hours a day at work - if they didn't their families would go short and be unprovided for - the "Arnms Trade" (whatever that might be - frothing again Jom?) is made up of such ordinary people Jom, it is not some monstrous, impersonal, anonymous, monolith. Union and private pension funds invest in these industries in order that their members will ultimately receive the pensions they've contributed for. The only part "our elected" representatives play in the game is to say whether or not certain things can be sold to certain customers - if they are not our customers then they, sure as eggs are eggs, are going to be someone else's customer.

8: If the people of the Arab world and adherents of the religion of peace want to fight - then let them - three times now, "WE" (The Big, Bad, Capitalist, West) have stepped in and we've been castigated for it by you and your like. So we are damned if we do and we're damned if we don't - might as well keep people earning while they, the people of the middle-east and the religion of peace, get on with killing one another as that is what they are going to do come hell or high water irrespective of what we do or don't do.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 11:25 AM

"depending upon what definition of torture you care to rest upon "
Isn't torture and mass murder definition enough?
"I could quantify the amounts exported from the UK over the last 6 years - which I managed to do using the articles and links that you yourself provided "
No report, as far as I can see, has the quantities sold over the last six years - only claims by politicians that they were not sufficent to make weapons.
"prior to 11th March 2011 Bashar Al-Assad was no mass-murderer "
According to the Amnesty report he was.
You know this and asked if Britain had a crystal ball to inform them of the tortures and murders - they didn't need one they already had the Amnesty reports on torture and mass 'disappearances' in Syria
Even that nice Mr Cable was forced to admit that Britain did trade with despots and killers - maybe you and your funy friend will get round to it one day.
"Does the export of riot control gear manufactured in the UK bother me? No it does not - after all it will never be used on me if it is exported will it?"
Which says all that needs to be said by you and your kind - trade before all.
"it was you who dashed into print at the time of the initial massacres in Homs in 2011 making claim that British weapons were being used to murder Syrian civilians"
Nope - I said they were sold to a murdering regime who were slaughtering people on the streets of Homs - you assured me that it was OK because they were only used for practice by the peole who were doing the slaughtering (that is before you denied their existence altogether, said that the licenses have been withdrawn.... and all the other convolutions you went through
One of the few things that never change in this world is the breed of eejits we have to come with - not forgetting your sick mate of course.
Wasn't the British people who sell arms and chemicals to killers - just the Arnms Trade and our elected representatives - or are you still claiming that the British people support the selling of arms to anybody who will buy them, like you fick friend believes?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:39 AM

The Next Step

1: "riot control gear was sold and licenced to a torturer and mass murder - (w)ith both your blessings"

Or put more accurately the British Government granted export licences so that a company could export riot control gear to Syria. As all nations "torture" people, or use "enhanced interrogation methods" on people depending upon what definition of torture you care to rest upon - trade in anything in the world would become difficult.

I would doubt very much if Great Britain has exported anything to Syria since the EU introduced its embargo and prior to 11th March 2011 Bashar Al-Assad was no mass-murderer - his father had been one years previously (~40,000 people in Homs) but he had very little to do with us at the time as he was firmly in the pocket of the USSR during the Cold War and had objected to our "support" of Israel in 1967 and in 1973.

As to the issuing of export licences I would doubt very much if Keith is consulted before hand, I know for certain that I am not. Does the export of riot control gear manufactured in the UK bother me? No it does not - after all it will never be used on me if it is exported will it?

2: "The chemicals and their amounts are immaterial and unproven (unless we takee Terrytoon's word for it) - sarin-producing chemicals were sold and licenced to a torturing and mass-murdering state - end of story."

Well the chemicals and the amounts were expressly mentioned in articles that you referred to and provided links for and I can distinctly remember you asking me if I could quantify the amounts exported from the UK over the last 6 years - which I managed to do using the articles and links that you yourself provided - so not really just on my say so is it? Or are you now telling us all that the information in those articles and links provided by you was wrong?

As Bashar Al-Assad did not venture forth on his career as a mass-murderer until after 11th March 2011 then the British Government are not responsible for issuing licences for anything that has been sent to him that he has subsequently used against his own people (Last licence that led to any export being May 2010) - you still have to prove that Jom - and as you yourself say that you are scrupulously impartial I am sure that you will make all best efforts to do that Jom before you start frothing at the mouth and casting wild accusations about.

3: "The facts of the sniper bullets sales"

I seem to recall Jom that it was you who dashed into print at the time of the initial massacres in Homs in 2011 making claim that British weapons were being used to murder Syrian civilians. A claim that both Keith and myself successfully challenged.

You could not prove that any weapons had been sent from the UK to Syria but instead provided a newspaper article that in general detailed British exports to the region (Region stretching from Algeria to the Arabian Sea.). This article was possibly and deliberately, very poorly written so that it was ambiguous about who was sent what - hence Keith's mistake in taking from the article that sniper rifles had been sent to Syria, giving the man his due he openly admitted his error when the picture became clearer, from this poorly written article the export licence being referred to was for a small amount of rifle ammunition - the licence was indeed issued, but as yet there has never been anything offered in proof that the ammunition was ever purchased, dispatched or delivered. So as far as British weapons killing civilians in Homs goes, your original bleat was proved as being nothing more than ill-informed, baseless waffle.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:08 AM

This was not meant to be about Britain and how much you hate it Jim.
This is a real and serious issue.

Your hijacking of the thread has led to the revelation that Britain supplied no weapons to Syria, and that nothing we supplied was used for weapons.

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

Neither tweedledum's nor Tweedledee's statements matter a toss - riot control gear was sold and licenced to a torturer and mass murder - ith both your blessings
The chemicals and their amounts are immaterial and unproven (unless we takee Terrytoon's word for it) - sarin-producing chemicals were sold and licenced to a torturing and mass-murdering state - end of story.
Whatever the facts of the sniper bullets sales, you pair of comedians identified them and claimed them unimportant despite your belief that they were sniper bullets and Assad's snipers were massacring the people of Homs at the time of your claims - also end of story
The next stop is yours isn't it - ding-ding
Jim Carroll

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

Alpha Cosmetics

Now then Jom, click on the products page and ask yourself if:

1: Any other "cosmetics" companies in the world (particularly the big, bad, evil, capitalist, western world) make any similar products.

2: They too use sodium fluoride in the manufacture of those products and how much is used to produce "x" amount of that product

3: It would be possible to purchase products that use sodium fluoride in their manufacture and scientifically analyse them to determine how much sodium fluoride would be required

4: Compare products to verify amounts and compare that to production data and amounts of sodium fluoride exported.

Gathering accurate data then using common sense, logic and reasoning you can then tell whether or not some newspaper with an agenda or some biased blogger is simply blowing smoke up your arse.

Cosmetics Suppliers in Syria - all five pages of them

Now try telling me that the information is not out there to be found and verified. Which is why I tend to believe it when a spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) stated that the amounts of sodium fluoride stated on the export licences granted were:

"Commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons program. This remains the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 05:53 AM

Armoured buses in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 05:45 AM

" it is very easy to check what their production run is and how much they use"
In an open and democratic regime like Syria - really? Now you are telling me something I didn't know!!!
Current reports at the time of the Syrian protests produced photographs of British armoured cars on the streets.
Your friend Tweedledee even proposed this as ok and suggested further sales
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 04:37 AM

Only problem is Jom that if Company A makes stuff that requires chemicals such as sodium fluoride to produce it is very easy to check what their production run is and how much they use. If it takes "x" amount of component "A" to make such-and-such a quantity of product "B". Then over the course of say six years if their orders for component "A" remain constant and their production of product "B" remains constant then there is S.F.A. of component "A" being redirected from that manufacturer so that some unscrupulous bastard can product "Y".

Sources of information that will tell you all that are numerous and all unclassified. Most thrown out there by companies eager to entice you into buying their products, or look for investors. So it is not mere supposition on the part of politicians and their mouthpieces.

As for the licence issued in 2009 so that some individual could export an extremely tiny volume of 7.62mm NATO standard ammunition to Syria, if you can show that that ammunition was ever exported then go ahead and do so. But my guess is that although moves were made by both seller and purchaser to complete this sale, the sale never in fact went through and was never completed, primarily because whoever it was in Syria who was responsible for making this purchase realised that NATO 7.62mm ammunition is useless for Soviet or Russian weapons that fire Soviet or Russian 7.62mm rounds. It is called using ones common sense Jom.

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

By the way - I always treat claims such as types of weaponry and details of shipment with a large degree of scepticism - you have a recurring habit of making things up to suit your own pseudo-militaristic fantacising, as shown by your "sniper - rifle bullets", which you first set out to prove were "only sniper rifle bullets used for practice becay#use "snipers tended to do that" (your words), then that the sale never existed, that it did exist but was withdrawn..... and numerous other sets of unqualified 'facts' that you invented to extract yourself from your self-dug hole.
Have a good parade, d'you hear now!
JOM Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 02:46 AM

Nothing in all that gets around the fact that Britain licensed and delivered chemicals essential for the manufacture of chemical weapons to a country run by a terrorist regime which uses those same chemical weapons against its own people - everything else is 'assurances' by politicians and their mouthpieces that the materials wouldn't be used for those purposes.
The stuff should never have been put within the reach of thee people in the first place - they should never have been sold it and if these sales were 'secure' they never need have withdrawn any licenses - it was, and the later licences (under pressure) were withdrawn because these sales were capable of producing chemical weapons.
Never gets more complicate than that.
Can't help but notice that you don't mention the weapons openly sold to all the other terrorist states Britain openly sells arms to - but you wouldn't, would you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 02:17 AM

If you sort the wheat from the chaff from Jom's cut-n-paste contribution on 26 Sep 13 - 05:40 PM - you get this:

UK DELIVERED SYRIA CHEMICALS NEEDED FOR SARIN PRODUCTION 'FOR 6 YEARS'

British companies sold sodium fluoride to a Syrian firm from 2004-2010. Between July 2004 and May 2010, the British government issued five export licenses to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride according to a report in the Daily Mail.

The Sunday Mail says UK firms did export sodium fluoride to a Syrian cosmetics firm throughout the six years for what they claim were legitimate purposes.

While the last export license was issued in May 2010, the licenses are obtained prior to manufacture and the industry standard requires four to five months before the chemicals are delivered.

However, a spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) defended the sale of the chemical to Syria, saying the amount was "commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons program. This remains the case."

Everything else in that article Jom is padding and supposition - mere conjecture - not FACT.

Jom asked me to provide a figure for the amount of sodium fluoride that the UK had sold to Syria in the last six years (2007 to 2013) and according to the figures given for the export licences detailed above that works out at 3,000 kg.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 04:18 AM

Daily Mail 7th September, last updated on the 8th.

Nothing since because all refuted and debunked.
If a minister is caught lying to Parliament he has to resign.
They must have been confident that there was nothing more that could come out.

There are plenty of journalists would love to expose evidence if there was any, but there is not.

The story is dead except in your demented and hate filled head.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 04:07 AM

"Since the 7th September, those calims have all been debunked."
Nope - just denied by politicians - suppose it's the same thing to you
I was just reminding everybody of the properties of the "harmless" properties of the shit being sold to despots round the world by Britain - about as harmless as Terminal's "herbicide" Agent Orange" and "merely petrol" Napalm - not forgetting your and his "only a few sniper rifles".
"And why post Russia Today rehashing it the next day?"
Coorection Daily mail publishing an expanded version showing Britain's years worth of sales of the same lethal garbage to the same despots.
Have a nice day - I am.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 02:39 AM

Jim, you have put up that old Daily Mail piece again!
Since the 7th September, those calims have all been debunked.
That is why there is nothing more recent.
The story is dead.
The claims baseless.

And why post Russia Today rehashing it the next day?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:32 PM

Seems that there aren't enough tin-foil hats to go around...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 08:27 PM

Sorry, missed abit:
Soory about the coloured letters – you seem to be missing bits.
Jim Carroll

LAST NIGHT THE BIS REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW MUCH SODIUM FLUORIDE WAS BOUGHT AND SOLD – or which companies were involved.
Intelligence expert Richard Kemp, a former member of the Government's COBRA emergency committee, said last night: 'President Assad would undoubtedly have diverted legitimately exported supplies of sodium fluoride in order to make chemical weapons.
'He would have absolutely no qualms about doing this, and his practice was well known to British diplomats and our intelligence agencies. In this light, it is grossly irresponsible of BIS to have approved these licences from 2004 to 2010.'
Scientists at the UK's military research laboratory at Porton Down proved that sarin was used in the chemical attack on August 21 after testing items of clothing recovered from the scene.
The US says the attack, near Damascus, killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.
And yesterday, EU officials meeting in Lithuania announced that they are convinced that the chemical attack was the work of President Assad's forces rather than any opposition fighters.
Last night a senior scientist condemned the sale, as Syria is one of just five countries to have refused to sign protocols against the use of chemical weapons.
The other nations not to have signed up to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) accords are North Korea, South Sudan, Egypt and Angola.
Professor Alastair Hay, a toxicology expert at Leeds University, said: 'The Government's approval of sodium fluoride sales to Syria during a period when it was widely suspected the regime was stockpiling dangerous substances is deeply disturbing.
'This was a serious mistake on BIS's part as while sodium fluoride has a multitude of benign uses, such as toothpaste, it remains a key ingredient in the manufacture of sarin. Quite simply, you need fluoride to make sarin.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415081/Britain-sent-poison-chemicals-Assad-Proof-UK-delivered-Sarin-agent-Syrian-regime

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 05:40 PM

By the way – I understand enough of what I post to know not to invent non-existent facts and figures of sodium fluoride sold to Assad by Britaim

UK DELIVERED SYRIA CHEMICALS NEEDED FOR SARIN PRODUCTION 'FOR 6 YEARS'
British companies sold sodium fluoride, a key ingredient in the manufacture of the deadly nerve gas sarin, to a Syrian firm from 2004-2010, British media reveal, a sale that has been called 'disturbing' following the chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
Between July 2004 and May 2010, the British government issued five export licenses to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, necessary for the production of sarin, according to a report in the Daily Mail, a British daily.
Sarin, a nerve gas that is hundreds of times deadlier than cyanide, is considered one of the world's most dangerous chemical warfare agents. It works on the nervous system, over-stimulating muscles and vital organs, and a single drop can be lethal in minutes. The US, France and Germany say the deadly chemical was used in the attacks of August 21 in the Damascus neighborhood of Ghouta that left hundreds of civilians dead or injured.
The Sunday Mail says UK firms did export sodium fluoride to a Syrian cosmetics firm throughout the six years for what they claim were legitimate purposes. The daily quotes British MPs admitting for the first time that the chemical was delivered to Syria which has been condemned as a 'grossly irresponsible' move and a clear violation of international protocol on the trade of dangerous substances.
British MPs signaled their extreme displeasure with the shocking revelations.
"These are very disturbing revelations uncovered by The Mail on Sunday regarding the provision of sodium fluoride to Syria. At no time should we have allowed President Assad's regime to get its hands on this substance," Thomas Docherty MP, a member of the Commons Arms Export Controls Committee, said on Saturday.
"Previously we thought that while export licenses had been granted, no chemicals were actually delivered. Now we know that in the build-up to the Syrian civil war, UK companies – with the backing of our Government – were supplying this potentially lethal substance," he added.

While the last export license was issued in May 2010, the licenses are obtained prior to manufacture and the industry standard requires four to five months before the chemicals are delivered.
"We are looking at late 2010 for the British supplies of sodium fluoride reaching Syria," Docherty said.
The Government has some very serious questions to answer, he concluded.
However, a spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) defended the sale of the chemical to Syria, saying the amount was "commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria's chemical weapons program. This remains the case."
The BIS refused to release the names of the two UK exporters for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
This comes on top of another sarin-related scandal as earlier British officials were found to have granted export licenses for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride exports to Syria on the eve of the Syrian civil conflict breakout. The January 2012 licenses were given in the knowledge that both substances "could also be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of chemical weapons," according to a report published by the House of Commons Committee on Arms Export Controls.
Angus Robertson, a Scottish National Party MP, told RT that the matter was raised in the House of Commons last week following the House of Commons ruling not to participate in military action against the Syrian government.
"Defense ministers had to explain why it was that the UK would even consider granting an export license,"he said, adding that it was "impossible to tell" whether rebels could have got hold of the chemicals once they had passed into the country.

A Syrian "I'm still concerned, however, as the chemical licenses were issued at a time when the situation in Syria had already deteriorated," Robertson added.

http://rt.com/news/uk-sarin-syria-weapons-chemical-573/

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 05:22 PM

My living in Ireland and thread drift - is that all you've got left Terminus?
Pathetic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 02:19 PM

Don't think you need to be involved in any of that nonsense Teribus.

"Mr T" is an abbreviation not a term of abuse BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:13 AM

Ah Jom you are indeed priceless - this one is a cracker:

"There is absolutely nothing to connect the CIA, or any element of the anti-government forces inside Syria with the rocket attack of the 21st August." - Teribus

"Who on earth said there was - I haven't commented." - Jom

What is the subject of this thread Jom? (I'll give you a hint - it is detailed in the box above labelled "Subject:) It has something to do with the likelihood of the CIA being involved in launching a missile armed with a chemical warhead in Syria - and yet you haven't seen fit to comment on it? Don't you think it is time that you did - all you have done so far is exactly what Keith has accused you of - wittering on about big bad Britain and completely ignoring all the facts that explode the myths you are attempting to create.

"You and Keith have been given reports"

No we haven't Jom, you have treated us to newspaper articles, most of which you clearly demonstrate that you patently do not understand - in other words Jom - your english comprehension skills suck to the point that I believe they are non-existent.

"Nobody is defending Russian sales to Syria - they are a fact"

Yet your condemnation in print is only reserved for the UK - please don't witter on about you being a Brit and your country doing whatever in your name - on this forum you have previously rejected your British roots and rejoiced in running off to the west coast of Ireland to embrace your "Celtic Roots".

"... and the proud fact that you own a B.B, air rifle or some sort of pop-gun"

The BB Gun

The Air Rifle

The Pop Gun


"You have produced not a single shred of evidence to contradict the reports you have been given"

I would imagine that if I had been given a report to comment on I would have done so. But as of yet you have not produced a single report for consideration - opinions written in newspaper articles by bloggers as biased as yourself and other articles that if read properly you would find actually support what Keith and I have been stating, your lack of the ability to comprehend strightforward english is at times astounding

"You don't even have the imagination to produce a half - decent response to Terrytoon, Terrabyte, Turpitude...

Well name calling is your thing isn't it Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 04:19 AM

There is absolutely nothing to connect the CIA, or any element of the anti-government forces inside Syria with the rocket attack of the 21st August."
Who on earth said there was - I haven't commented.
You and Keith have been given reports of chemical and convention military equipment sales to Syria, Bahrain, Sri Lanks.... and a whole host of despotic states, along with a statement from a British minister.
Nobody is defending Russian sales to Syria - they are a fact
You now appear to be erecting straw men to avoid the fact that Britain is an arms dealing state that profits from despotic regimes that use British arms against their own people
You are a sad pseudo-military fantasist whose nearest approach to military knowledge comes from despertely sought-out cut-'n-pastes and the proud fact that you own a B.B, air rifle or some sort of pop-gun - I'll bet you play War Games
You have produced not a single shred of evidence to contradict the reports you have been given, rather, you wrap your claims in meaningless verbiage that appears to be designed to impress us "civvies" with your soldier-boy knowledge - you are a sad, sad man - go and fantasise somewhere else, you really are not very good at this.
JOM Carroll
You don't even have the imagination to produce a half - decent response to Terrytoon, Terrabyte, Turpitude... and have to rely on my typo - "JOM" - "Christmas...." for crying out loud, can't you do better than that - I went through primary school listening to inanities such as those - try "Lewis" or "Carroll's a girl's name" - will send you a few more if it will help you feel like a man!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 02:47 AM

Additionally Jom:

5: I asked fellow mudcatters who had been ex-US Servicemen to tell us all about the chemical and biological weapons inventory of the US armed forces, of the training that they must have undoubtedly received related to the storage, handling, arming and firing of such weapons - and just as I predicted when I originally asked the question on this thread - NOT A SINGLE TAKER - So much for the USA's extensive stock of chemical and biological weapons.

6: Where is this compelling evidence of rebel involvement that Bashar Al-Assad handed over to the Russians? The Russians did say that they were going to submit it to the UN in the course of a few days didn't they? What's the betting it never sees the light of day, let alone get handed over, because it is what it is - a complete and utter crock (That not even the Russian FSS can dress up to achieve even a modicum of credibility).

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 01:43 AM

So in summation so far Jom:

1: There is absolutely nothing to connect the CIA, or any element of the anti-government forces inside Syria with the rocket attack of the 21st August.

2: Any chatter about conventional Syrian Army weapons hitting "rebel" chemical weapons and them then leaking have been completely dispelled by the UN weapons inspectors report on the incident

3: While I deal in fact, logic and reason you run on emotive claptrap backed up by the ill-informed and unfounded opinions of extremely biased bloggers selected solely because those opinions match your own views (That is why "The Impartial" tag, that you gave yourself, is so hilarious)

4: Every single contention you have made with regard to the Government of the United Kingdom and their dealings with Syria have been reduced and exposed as complete and utter twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 12:05 PM

Piss off Terminus - you have had my answers - I responded to yours one by one
Now you are reducd to total evasion on every point
I'd quote the dogs and fleas proverb - but too late for that, I'm afraid
Anout turn - quick march, left, right, left, right........
JOM (as it seems to turn you on) Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 11:15 AM

Naw I like the sound of - Jom "The Impartial" - there's this utter ridiculousness about it when matched up to the inane rubbish you come out with.


1: What British involvement? None proved so far. Russia was the greatest exporter of arms around the world in terms of quantity long before it "shook off the bonds of Communism".

2: Amounts of Sodium Fluoride sold to Syria by two British Companies in the last 6 years? - 3,000kg

2: I would imagine that these chemicals do have a "use by date" plus fairly strict conditions relating to containers, general storage and exposure to the elements. I have no idea at all of what "stockpiles" of chemicals the Syrians may, or may not, hold, but one thing of which I am certain in the last six years only 3,000kg of Sodium Fluoride was sent from the UK and nothing has been sent to Syria since May 2010.

3: What British involvement? You have proved none.

4: Currently we are not trading with Syria

5: And what is being done in the name of Britain precisely? As far as Syria goes all we are committing and sending is humanitarian aid which you state is Imperialistic and as such should be stopped. We most certainly are not sending "weapons".

6: Oh so we have traded with Syria in the past but not at present in fact we haven't traded with them since almost a year BEFORE the current crackdown began. Will we like every other country in world trade with Syria once it has managed to pass through these current troubles? I would certainly hope so, to do anything else would be against our own national interests.

7: Keith did, I didn't. Keith later had the honesty and integrity to admit that he had made an error – something that you are incapable of. The export licence issued was for standard 7.62mm ammunition, that as yet no proof exists that it was ever sent.


8: No gas, no armoured cars sold to Syria - Period. So please stop wittering on about Britains arms sales to Assad - they don't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 08:17 AM

1: "only thing is Jom, being impartial as you are, that you have never actually ever said that or specifically taken them to task over it."
Have made it clear from the start that both Russia and China's role is reprehensible but I don't accept it as an excuse for Britain's involvement - why should I support them now - they are one of the 'Great and the Good' since they shook off the bonds of Communism - they are arms dealers, just like Britain.

2: " No argument that Britain has licenced the export of chemicals that could possibly have been used for the production of Sarin gas. "
Nuff sed

But "could possibly have been" does not = were, or even probably were.
Can you produce figures to show the amounts of chemicals sold to Syria over the last six years – no?
Though that was the case.

2There is also no argument, due to the existence of documented records that show, that no such chemicals have been exported from Britain to Syria since March 2010.2
So what – do these chemicals come with a "use by" date, don't the Syriand have enormous stockpiles going back years

3: "Agreed now let us hear you castigate the Russians and the Chinese for doing precisely that - but I will not hold my breath.
Have made it clear from the start that both Russia and China's role is reprehensible but I don't accept it as an excuse for Britain's involvement - why should I support them now - they are one of the 'Great and the Good' since they shook off the bonds of Communism - thy are arms dealers, just like Britain.

4: " so tell us who is preventing such sanctions being implemented by the Security Council of the United Nations? "
So what – we have been reliably informed that Britain's trade is valued and would be a possible lever in ending the killing – we have ignored this in order that our trade might not be interrupted – even if it does not stop Assad it still leaves us with his shit on our hands as a trading partner.

5: " Care to name me one single country in the world that does not take that stance?"
Doesn't matter – I'm a Brit and am answerable only to what is done in the name of Britain.

6: "WE are NOT trading with these monsters "
We have, and the Government have made clear that we will continue to do so, after all, we continue to try to sell arms to Bahrain, or have I got that wrong?

7: I have never referred to any sale of sniper rifles by Britain to Syria - quite simply because there never has been any sale of sniper rifles to Syria by Britain
Keith did – you went along with it as "sniper rifle ammunition" and followed it with all the convolutions as I described, then finally slunk away, leaving Keith to further nausea up the mess you'd both created.
The rest of your comments on this are unqualified pseudo-military bullshit that can be heard in any 'Dad's Army' bar around closing time – the licence was issued – if it was not fulfilled – prove it – Keith is still insisting that he thought you were talking about Libya.

8: "Finian Cunningham saying so does not make it a fact"
Certainly does not, however, Assad is a war criminal and Britain licensed ammunition (as you pointed out, possibly "sniper rifle bullets") to a customer in Syria decades after they were identified as human rights monsters.
The press was full of the uses Bahrain put to the riot control gear sold to them by Britain, so much so that the Government was forced to withdraw thirteen licences for similar – Britain then went on to attempt to sell that same happy State yet more weapons at an Arms Fair held a month into the Arab Spring disputes.
You seem to have missed the bit that Keith ignored about selling arms to Sri Lanka.
Or don't any of these people fall within your definition of "war criminals and human rights abusers".

8: "Sold Gas? Calor or Propane? How much?"
Another bit you conveniently missed – riot control gear? Water cannon? 'unarmed' armoured cars – all acknowledged by Keith, who proposed that it was OK to continue supplying them after people were being shot down in the streets of Homs.

"Keith A has done a more than adequate job in ripping you to shreds in this and on other threads."
Yeah -I can see that - he has done more U-turns and wheelies than the boy-racers do here on a Sunday afternoon after the pubs close.
At least hs fanaticism has some consistency - you piss off every time the water comes over your Hush Puppies.
Next!!
Jim Carroll   
Still not worked out a substitute for "Jom" give us a shout if you need a hand!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 06:33 AM

1: "There never has been any dispute that Russia has been the main supplier of weapons to Syria"

It therefore follows according to your argument that they then are most certainly complicit in the atrocities that have occurred there - only thing is Jom, being impartial as you are, that you have never actually ever said that or specifically taken them to task over it.

2: "At the same time, there is no argument that Britain has been supplying chemicals that can, and probably were used for the production of sarin gas for over six years (at least)"

No argument that Britain has licenced the export of chemicals that could possibly have been used for the production of Sarin gas. But "could possibly have been" does not = were, or even probably were. Particularly when you match quantities to what the stated use was and the production of the companies involved - In short Jom there was no sodium fluoride left over to manufacture Sarin gas with.

There is also no argument, due to the existence of documented records that show, that no such chemicals have been exported from Britain to Syria since March 2010.

3: "Selling war criminals anything that is capable of killing and maiming human beings is - or should be - collusion in war crimes."

Agreed now let us hear you castigate the Russians and the Chinese for doing precisely that - but I will not hold my breath.

4: "When the withdrawal of all trade is a possible means to stop the massacres of civilians, and when this is suggested by an official who has taken part in those massacres, to ignore it is an act of gross inhumanity."

Of course withdrawal of trade is a possible means of halting the massacres of civilians - so tell us who is preventing such sanctions being implemented by the Security Council of the United Nations? Rhetorical question, we already know the answer to that Russia and China. The EU has put embargoes in place, Britain was instrumental in suggesting them, unfortunately the EU are the only nations observing them so they are reduced to being pointless and ineffective gestures.

5: "Britain continues to regard Assad's Syria as a trading partner whatever the outcome of the present conflict - ministers have made it clear that it "cannot be allowed to disrupt trading relationships."

Care to name me one single country in the world that does not take that stance? I know for a fact that you cannot. Doesn't alter the fact that at present the Russians are still trading with Assad's Syria, supplying him with weapons and with munitions, but Britain and the EU are not.

6: "You and your mate seem to feed on cut-n-pasted "facts" rather than the grim realities of trading with these monsters."

Only thing is Jom - WE are NOT trading with these monsters - Russia and China on the other hand ARE and they always have been.

7: I have never referred to any sale of sniper rifles by Britain to Syria - quite simply because there never has been any sale of sniper rifles to Syria by Britain. You on the other hand stated that Britain had supplied rifles to the Assad regime that were being used to kill people in Homs, and you persisted in that claim until it was pointed out to you that it was rifle ammunition, which you then said was being used to kill people in Homs. Only trouble with that giant leap was that while a licence to export a tiny amount of standard NATO 7.62mm ammunition was granted in 2009 (IIRC), there never was any record of the sale actually having gone through or of any delivery of that ammunition to Syria. The licence was issued to a private business and not any British Government Department.

I could not see why the Syrians who are equipped by the Russians would want standard Nato 7.62mm ammunition as that would be useless in the weapons that they used. So unlike doing as you do and merely run on conjecture I did a bit of research and found that the Iraqi Police had acquired Austrian Steyr SSG 69 rifles which use standard Nato 7.62mm ammunition - of the weapons available to the Syrian forces the Steyr would be the least effective to use in a combat situation (I mean let's face it you are going to elect to go into combat armed with a five round bolt action rifle rather than an equally accurate semi-automatic rifle with a thirty round magazine? - Yeah of course you would) - that is why police forces use them not army personnel.

The value of the export licence granted in 2009 would have purchased ~100,000 rounds, all of which, provided that they were ever sent and there is no evidence that they were, you seem to think were saved up for two years to use against civilian targets in Homs in 2011 - highly unlikely don't you think? Again it goes to choice of weapon are you going to go into combat armed with a gun that only has a very limited supply of ammunition or are you going to go with the Russian stuff whose ammunition supplies are limitless? Another no-brainer.

Oh and people in both police forces and in various branches of the armed forces who are qualified as snipers, or are training to become snipers do go through an inordinate amount of ammunition (830 rounds per month for a period of two years would mean that only 166 men out of Syria's 220,000 could fire 5 bullets per month - then all their ammo would have been gone - so were civilians killed in Homs by standard Nato 7.62mm bullets? I strongly doubt it - you of course could supply the proof but again I won't hold my breath)

8: "Britain trades arms with war criminals making us complicit in war crimes - a recorded fact."

What arms? What war crimes? What recorded fact (HINT - Finian Cunningham saying so does not make it a fact)

9: "We sold gas, armoured cars and other forms of riot control equipment that were used on the streets of Homs and Aleppo - also a recorded fact"

Sold Gas? Calor or Propane? How much?
Armoured Cars? Make? Type? Numbers? When?
I mean to say Jom if as you say this is all recorded fact you must have all the relevant details at your finger tips along with all the pertinent sources. But my guess is that you haven't.

By the way I loved your

As you where corporal ROFLMAO

But honoured to see that you have promoted me.

Funny thing about mistakes, in the heat of the moment when people tend to froth at the mouth as you do Jom, those mistakes get carried over when they write as other people - makes them easy to spot.

As to lack of responses referred to? I very rarely even bother to read a single thing that you write and Keith A has done a more than adequate job in ripping you to shreds in this and on other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 06:09 AM

"Please refrain from misrepresenting my vies Jim. You only give more ammunition to the biased ones."
Meant to answer this one yesterday Don
Didn't misrepresent your views - merely said we have both put our views.
We disagree on many things, including here, but I respect those disagreements as being honest - can't bring myself round to saying the same thing of Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 06:02 AM

"Flouride is a readily available, common and cheap commodity."
Fluoride is essential to the manufacture of chemical weapons - it should not be sold to war criminals who use chemical weapons
If Assad can get it anywhere, why were the licences withdrawn?
Can we assume that you were lying when you claimed that guarantees were obtained as you have now U-turned and are now claiming that no guarantees were necessary?
As I told the Chocolate Soldier - consistency is the order of the day.
"You just love to hate Britain."
Don't you always fall back on this one in a corner?
I am a Briton who hates those who associate ordinary British people with war crimes and I hate people who accuse ordinary British people of selling arms to killers
IT IS THE BRITISH ARMS INDUSTRY WHO SELL ARMS TO MONSTERS AND IT IS BRITISH POLITICIANS WHO LICENCE THOSE SALES - NOT THE BRITISH PEOPLE
TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS THE BRITISH PEOPLE WHO FACILITATE THOSE SALES IS ABOUT AS ANTI-BRITISH AS IT GETS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:34 AM

Flouride is a readily available, common and cheap commodity.
Fortunes are not made supplying it.
Not like armaments.

Assad could get it anywhere.
We make sure ours is not misused, but others don't care.
Especially not those happy to supply lethal weaponry anyway.

Assad did not need to use our flouride for weapons.
Not worth the trouble to deceive when it is so easily obtained elsewhere.

We will not agree on this.
A cast iron case has been made against you, but it makes no difference.
You just love to hate Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:18 AM

"Peaceful use only."
Ah - but did they get it in writing!!!
We are still talking about the the regime that has been torturing, disappearing and gassing its people for decades aren't we?
These are chemicals are essential for the manufacture of sarin weapons
Assad is a long-term practitioner of torture and murder   
Assad has used sarin weapons on his people
Facts
Assad is a career war criminal and human rights abuser
It has been known he and his family have been torturing and disappearing his people throughout that time
The chemicals sold by Britain are essential to the manufacture of sarin.
Assad has recently been found to have used sarin on a massive scale on his own people
What does that add up to - two and two make - six maybe?
What possible guarantees can there possibly be what those British chemicals were used for and does it matter
CHEMICALS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING CHEMICAL WEAPONS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE REACH OF A THUG LIKE ASSAD WHATEVER THEIR CLAIMED USE
Matches are for lighting cigarettes, you don't leave them within the reach of pyromaniacs.
What "checks" were made - so far we only have your and Vince the Mince's word to go on - can you actually show what guarantees were secures before the sales were made?
OF COURSE YOU CAN'T - NO SUCH "GUARANTEES" ARE POSSIBLE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
As you appear to have abandoned any intelligence you might once have possessed, please stop insulting ours.
Britain should never have sold peashooters to Assad, let alone the components for chemical warfare.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 04:08 AM

No. Not relying on the Syrian authorities Jim.
The British government made the checks.
Peaceful use only.
Metal finishing and cosmetics.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:04 AM

Can't see your argument Terrytoon
There never has been any dispute that argument that Russia has been the main supplier of weapons to Syria - certainly not from me
At the same time, there is no argument that Britain has been supplying chemicals that can, and probably were used for the production of sarin gas for over six years (at least)
You want to join your brain-dead mate in arguing that it's OK because the Syrian authorities insisted that it was only for the use in production of aluminium framed windows and toothpaste, or "Russia sells them more than we do" feel free
Selling war criminals anything that is capable of killing and maiming human beings is - or should be - collusion in war crimes.
When the withdrawal of all trade is a possible means to stop the massacres of civilians, and when this is suggested by an official who has taken part in those massacres, to ignore it is an act of gross inhumanity.
Britain continues to regard Assad's Syria as a trading partner whatever the outcome of the present conflict - ministers have made it clear that it "cannot be allowed to disrupt trading relationships."
You and your mate seem to feed on cut-n-pasted "facts" rather than the grim realities of trading with these monsters.
I was amused at your response to the "sniper bullets".
If I remember rightly, you and Humanist Keith identified them as being merely "a few sniper rifles(sic)"
You went on to sneer that they were only used for target practice "snipers tend to do that" were your exact words.
Then, realising how that related to the fact that mothers carrying children in arms were being shot down by snipers on the streets of Homs, you both beat a hasty retreat, first claiming there was no evidence that the sale never existed, then that it did but the licence was withdrawn, then that it was for a private buyer and was for hunting, than that Britain had no idea of the Syrian regime's human rights record, ("did they have a crystal ball?")....
It was around then you rode off into the sunset, leaving your mate to fight the good fight alone - he managed a couple more contradictory excuses, finally settling on "I made a mistake, I thought we were talking about Libya".
Didn't Captain Mainwaring teach you the value of "concentrating on the job in hand if you were ever to defeat the Hun" when you were drilling in the schoolyard back in Warmington of Sea?
Consistency lad, consistency - that's the secret of being a good toy soldier!
You don't even appear to have the dubious quality of dogmatic fanaticism that your mate does and tend to scurry away when the going gets tough, leaving him to fight the good fight alone.
Britain trades arms with war criminals making us complicit in war crimes - a recorded fact.
We sold gas, armoured cars and other forms of riot control equipment that were used on the streets of Homs and Aleppo - also a recorded fact   
Britain sold gas and riot control gear to Bahrain, was forced to withdraw thirteen licences, then hosted an arms fair to sell them more.
Now - bluster away - it seems to be your one talent
Jim Carroll
By the way, I'm increasingly impressed by your used of the highly inventive use of my name "Jom" - it takes a stunning brain to think to pick up on one of my typos - magnificent.
Carry on sergeant!

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:00 AM

String, presumably you have seen some of the vast amounts of video coming out of Syria.
Have you or anyone ever seen a US or UK made weapon?
Any Western country?

Neither have I.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 02:02 AM

"I don't think you can trust Wikipedia to have the most relevant information on this issue."

I assume that "on this issue" you are referring to the military hardware that the Assad regime has acquired and still continues to receive from "Mother Russia".

Odd though isn't it that wikipedia is always an unimpeachable source when it suits some arguments and a useless source when it contradicts those same arguments.

I believe that nobody has to go to the CIA or MI6 to discover what military hardware the Assad Regime uses and who supplies that regime - simply watch the ghastly news coverage from the area, read reports from the various NGOs, consult Jane's, read reports from the UN's observers and weapons inspectors.

One NGO detailed the top twelve "killers" in Assad's weapons inventory - ten came directly from Russia and of the other two one came from China and the other came from Egypt or more likely Iran, both being copies of Russian systems - all information I have looked at supports what is shown quite clearly in the wikipedia article I provided the link to (Not a Union Standard or a Stars and Stripes in sight).

Did the CIA use Sarin in the attacks of the 21st August 2013 in Damascus, or were they in any way responsible? The massive weight of evidence available to third party independent inspectors suggests that no they did not, and no they were not.

Jom "The Impartial" quotes blogger Finian Cunningham who states that the Russians have evidence that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons, a statement that Jom obviously believes and has swallowed hook-line-and sinker. Only thing is though, the Russians have, for reasons best known to themselves, decided not to share this evidence with anybody, perhaps if they did a thread could be opened under the title:

"Did FSS use Spetsnaz to launch the Sarin missile in Syria to discredit the rebels?"

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:51 PM

I don't think you can trust Wikipedia to have the most relevant information on this issue.
This is within the province of state department classified documents and you would have
to query the CIA and MI6 for genuine information. Wiki's function is best served by non-political or biographical data. Remember who can post information to Wiki and all the sources quoted in the world will not reveal the truth of this matter. The fact is, that unless you are working for the CIA or agencies that are involved directly in this issue, you don't know what you're talking about. This is not a transparent issue.

Did the CIA use sarin? We don't know and no one on this thread knows unless they work for the CIA or other relevant agencies. In the meantime, the best we can do is wade through
the propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 05:34 AM

""you have my and Don's position on this matter - give your own honestly rather than "Britain is innocent" - she isn't and the world knows that""

Please refrain from misrepresenting my vies Jim. You only give more ammunition to the biased ones.

I have said I will wait for evidence more compelling than political propaganda, before apportioning responsibilty for the gas attack.

Add to that the fact that I have said throughout that military intervention should not happen until the culprit has been irrefutably identified.

So your views and mine do not coincide in any way other than our opinion of the opposition.

Don T.