BS: Did CIA lunch the Sarin missile in Syria

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 - 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 - 10:42 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July, this year – as out of date as 8 weeks old – tut-tut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: 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: 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: 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: 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: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 08:17 PM

Er, LAUNCH???

~S~

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: 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.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.