Is there a conspiracy around chemical weapons attacks in Syria

[jvnk08]

On the subject of Israel, we're all aware they were dropping chemical weapons on Gaza between 2008 and 2009, yes? That they lied about it to the UN, right up until one the shells hit the UN headquarters in Gaza, killing hundreds? If chemical weapons are such a 'red line', and the impending military action in Syria is all about the humanitarian effort to prevent further use of chemical weapons, where was the military action against Israel then? Interesting that when a business partner uses chemical weapons against citizens within its own borders they get a wag of the finger, whereas when an obstruction is alleged to have done it, bombing the fuck out of them is the only moral thing to do.

If you're talking about White Phosphorous, let me preface by saying I object to its use as an incendiary, which is the form in which it causes the horrible things it does.

With that said, saying WP is a chemical weapon is a bit disingenuous. It's not used in the way actual contemporary chemical weapons are and does not share the same traits. That's why it doesn't fall under the Chemical Weapons Charter and isn't legally defined as a chemical weapon(instead, in its' incendiary form it's regulated under the Geneva convention among other international treaties). So I'd say its the combination of less stringent, technically(of course not ethically) legally defensible status along with the US's cozy relationship with Israel that are to blame for why Israel didn't suffer any repercussions, not that they "got away with using chemical weapons"(because they didn't). Don't get me wrong, I think the usage is wrong and they should held accountable, but striking a parallel between that WP usage and the Ghouta attack is a stretch.

 

[Grieves]

With that said, saying WP is a chemical weapon is a bit disingenuous.

The DoD would disagree with you, except when it's convenient not too.

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS.

IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS

It's not used in the way actual contemporary chemical weapons are and does not share the same traits.

You pack it in shells. You drop it on people. They die horribly. There are indeed differences, but do they matter that much?

That's why it doesn't fall under the Chemical Weapons Charter and isn't legally defined as a chemical weapon(instead, in its' incendiary form it's regulated under the Geneva convention among other international treaties).

I thought it was only admissible in war for illumination/smoke purposes?

Don't get me wrong, I think the usage is wrong and they should held accountable, but striking a parallel between that WP usage and the Ghouta attack is a stretch.

Why? A government deployed prohibited weaponry against civilians within their own borders on both occasions, and if the current allegations are true, both governments lied about it. What's the stretch?

edit: from the Wiki:

No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.
If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons".

 

[jvnk08]

The DoD would disagree with you, except when it's convenient not too.

WP is a "chemical weapon" in the sense that it's both a chemical(well, an element) and is used in weapons. But it doesn't fit the definition of a contemporary weaponized chemical in that it isn't used explicitly for its toxic effects on biological processes(See the Geneva convention and Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons definition below). Colloquially it can be referred to as a chemical weapon, but when drawing the comparison between WP usage in Gaza and the Ghouta attack it doesn't hold up(for reasons besides those definitions).

You pack it in shells. You drop it on people. They die horribly. There are indeed differences, but do they matter that much?

Yes, absolutely.

Chemical weapons are ugly for all the reasons listed above, but also for their indiscriminate behavior. The compounds are guided by weather, barometric pressure, and wind. Toxins pool, they coat the surfaces of everything they touch, and they linger.

Sarin's shelf life — the time it takes to degrade — ranges from several weeks to several months. So once it's out there, it sticks around an awfully long time.

Casually slipping fingers across an affected patch of dew on a window, a patch of grass, or even opening an infected door handle can all have the same effects as a fresh attack.

http://www.businessinsider.com/syrias-chemical-weapon-rundown-sarin-vx-mustard-mopp-2012-12

It's those inherent unpredictable properties which set chemical weapons apart and are why they're taken so seriously(not to say WP isn't taken seriously but it's much more controllable).

I thought it was only admissible in war for illumination purposes?

Wikipedia has this to say:

However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" (CWC, II). An annex lists chemicals that fall under this definition and WP is not listed in the Schedules of chemical weapons or precursors.[93]

In an 2005 interview with RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (an organization overseeing the CWC and reporting directly to the UN General Assembly), questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions:

No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.
If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons".[94]

In essence, WP is not used as a weapon for its toxic effects on biological processes(which do exist but pale in comparison to the likes of Sarin, VX, etc), but rather because it readily bursts into flame. One needs to have ignited WP land on their skin for it to cause the terrible things it does, in contrast with Sarin in which one must simply be in the general vicinity(or upwind) of the chemical's release, or even something as simple as disturbing a deposit months later.

Why? A government deployed prohibited weaponry against civilians within their own borders on both occasions, and if the current allegations are true, both governments lied about it. What's the stretch?

Well, it's not explicitly prohibited. WP is vastly different from chemical weapons, and the two incidents as a result are markedly different. If the chemicals used in Ghouta were properly mixed and the weather permitted it, the affected areas might be inhospitable for months or years. I totally agree that both governments have lied about it, but really the severity of what they did differs by at least an order of magnitude.

 

[Oxymoron]

Well, it's not explicitly prohibited. WP is vastly different from chemical weapons, and the two incidents as a result are markedly different. If the chemicals used in Ghouta were properly mixed and the weather permitted it, the affected areas might be inhospitable for months or years. I totally agree that both governments have lied about it, but really the severity of what they did differs by at least an order of magnitude.

Such fine distinctions. Being as the U.S is the one interpreting the rules to suit itself, it is hardly surprising that such fine distinctions are used is it? No court will find itself guilty if it is the 'highest power' and as the U.S is relying on all sorts of political, economic and military threats in it's efforts to validate it's position and excuse itself of any wrongdoing... whatever it does... why should anyone be surprised that it concludes it has moral and legal validation for it's war crimes. Who is going to bring them to task? Power corrupts and power seems to be corrupting the U.S govt very nicely at this juncture.

 

[Grieves]

WP is a "chemical weapon" in the sense that it's both a chemical(well, an element) and is used in weapons. But it doesn't fit the definition of a contemporary weaponized chemical in that it isn't used explicitly for its toxic effects on biological processes(See the Geneva convention and Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons definition below). Colloquially it can be referred to as a chemical weapon, but when drawing the comparison between WP usage in Gaza and the Ghouta attack it doesn't hold up(for reasons besides those definitions).

What was colloquial about the DoD report specifically classifying WP as a chemical weapon multiple times throughout?

One needs to have ignited WP land on their skin for it to cause the terrible things it does

You seem to be discounting the capacity of fire to rapidly spread... especially when its source can't be extinguished conventionally.

Well, it's not explicitly prohibited.

In civilian areas it most certainly is.

WP is vastly different from chemical weapons, and the two incidents as a result are markedly different. If the chemicals used in Ghouta were properly mixed and the weather permitted it, the affected areas might be inhospitable for months or years. I totally agree that both governments have lied about it, but really the severity of what they did differs by at least an order of magnitude.

The aftermath is different, not necessarily greater. Organ failure or burning to death? Poisoned land or charcoal where the house used to be? Cancer of the brain or cancer of the lung? Who's to say what's worse/better? Between 08 and 09 Israel killed an estimated 1,400 Palestinians in these sorts of attacks, about 300 of them children. Ironically, that's almost identical to the figures some American authorities are claiming in the Syrian incident, though the French, who I'm slightly more inclined to trust, place the death-toll of the chemical weapon attack in Syria at more like 350.

 

[Oxymoron]

though the French, who I'm slightly more inclined to trust, place the death-toll of the chemical weapon attack in Syria at more like 350.

As do virtually all other sources, apart from those parroting the U.S's conflated figures

But we shall no doubt see scenes such as this in Syria, if Obama & co get their way.



I wonder how many will die from the 'precision' attack... more than 350 or 1400, that's for sure. But it will be a really nice 'humanitarian death', courtesy of the good ol U.S.A

Maybe they may call it a snazzy name like 'Lightning Strike' or something.

 

[David Fraser]

Such fine distinctions. Being as the U.S is the one interpreting the rules to suit itself, it is hardly surprising that such fine distinctions are used is it? No court will find itself guilty if it is the 'highest power' and as the U.S is relying on all sorts of political, economic and military threats in it's efforts to validate it's position and excuse itself of any wrongdoing... whatever it does... why should anyone be surprised that it concludes it has moral and legal validation for it's war crimes. Who is going to bring them to task? Power corrupts and power seems to be corrupting the U.S govt very nicely at this juncture.

Maybe fine distinctions but WP is still distinct from a chemical weapon. I have worked with the stuff and it is nasty ( a mortar round exploded on a range and I was the medic, not a great deal you can do ).

 

[Grieves]

As do virtually all other sources, apart from those parroting the U.S's conflated figures

Morbid drinking game that will get you shit-faced:
watch Obama's address to Sweden from yesterday. Drink every time he says '400 children' in response to a question regarding his military intentions.

Maybe fine distinctions but WP is still distinct from a chemical weapon. I have worked with the stuff and it is nasty ( a mortar round exploded on a range and I was the medic, not a great deal you can do ).

Again I refer you to the Department of Defense report which specifically labels WP as a chemical weapon. Desert Storm was justified largely by Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. WP is the chemical weapon referred to in that case, not nerve gas.

 

[SR1419]

the discrepancy in the causality figures is not going unnoticed or unreported:

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-casualties-20130904,0,681916.story

U.S. figure for casualties in Syria attack much higher than others'

 

[jvnk08]

What was colloquial about the DoD report specifically classifying WP as a chemical weapon multiple times throughout?

You're drawing a parallel between the Israeli WP use and the Ghouta attacks, one of which was done with an actual conventional chemical agent and the other with what could be called a "chemical weapon" just like napalm can be called a "chemical weapon". But the key distinction is that purpose of napalm is not to shut down biological processes by exposure to polystyrene or benzene, and its effectiveness is dependent on physical contact as a result of precision.

You seem to be discounting the capacity of fire to rapidly spread... especially when its source can't be extinguished conventionally.

The aftermath is different, not necessarily greater. Organ failure or burning to death? Poisoned land or charcoal where the house used to be? Cancer of the brain or cancer of the lung? Who's to say what's worse/better? Between 08 and 09 Israel killed an estimated 1,400 Palestinians in these sorts of attacks, about 300 of them children. Ironically, that's almost identical to the figures some American authorities are claiming in the Syrian incident, though the French, who I'm slightly more inclined to trust, place the death-toll of the chemical weapon attack in Syria at more like 350.

I agree with you in principle, they're both terrible inventions and cause people to die in terrible ways. But WP is still nothing like a gas release. Once a chemical agent is out, it's out, and there's no 100% effective way to tell if it's still in the area or where it has wandered(short of sentinel animals, that is). Only a full hazmat suit can protect you from this completely invisible, almost undetectable threat.

WP can be targeted and controlled, even if it's more difficult than a typical fire.

Looking up the Gaza War, the PCHR puts the death toll at ~950 civilians for the entire conflict. I'm fairly certain that not even a majority of them died from WP, but if you have evidence of that please share. WP is commonly used as a smoke screen in urban settings and I think it's plausible that a significant portion of its use was for that purpose.

See quote below regarding the ~350 dead in Ghouta from MDF.

As do virtually all other sources, apart from those parroting the U.S's conflated figures

Actually there's a variety of death toll reports from the 300's to the 1400+ figure by the US:

355 died in 3 hospitals (MSF claim)[1]
494 killed (The Damascus Media Office claim)[2]
502 killed (SOHR claim)[3]
588 killed (VDC claim)[4]
635 killed (SRGC claim)[5]
1,222 killed (HRO East Ghouta claim)[6]
1,300 killed (SNC claim)[7]
1,338 killed (LCC claim)[8]
1,429 killed (United States estimate)[9]
1,729 killed (FSA claim)[10]

Here's the actual MSF report you're citing, which seems to indicate the 355 figure is those who died while in hospitalization between the 21st and 24th(being generous of course, that may have been the first day):

Brussels, 24 August 2013 - Three hospitals in Syria's Damascus governorate that are supported by the international medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) have reported to MSF that they received approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in less than three hours on the morning of Wednesday, August 21, 2013. Of those patients, 355 reportedly died.

http://www.msf.org/article/syria-th...oxic-symptoms-treated-hospitals-supported-msf

 

[David Fraser]

Morbid drinking game that will get you shit-faced:
watch Obama's address to Sweden from yesterday. Drink every time he says '400 children' in response to a question regarding his military intentions.

Again I refer you to the Department of Defense report which specifically labels WP as a chemical weapon. Desert Storm was justified largely by Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. WP is the chemical weapon referred to in that case, not nerve gas.

Wrong war mate ;-)

Also I talk from a UK angle and also a pragmatic soldiers angle.

 

[Grieves]

You're drawing a parallel between the Israeli WP use and the Ghouta attacks, one of which was done with an actual conventional chemical agent, the other with what could be called a "chemical weapon" just like napalm can be called a "chemical weapon". But the key distinction is that purpose of napalm is not to shut down biological processes by exposure to polystyrene or benzene and its effectiveness is dependent on physical contact as a result of precision.

I understand the difference between how the two weapons work. Again, the Department of Defense has specifically labeled WP a chemical weapon, and as a motivator for military action no less. One can fiss-fuddle over semantics, but Desert Storm happened.

Wrong war mate ;-)

So when the theater changes, so does the definition? How convenient War can be when on the winning side.

Looking up the Gaza War, the PCHR puts the death toll at ~950 civilians for the entire conflict.

I tried to find this statistic on the PCHR page, nothing is coming up. I did however find this actual list of names of the dead. 950 civilians doesn't sound entirely unreasonable, given the propensity to label any young male a militant. Consider though, that during the actual 4 month 'War', 9 Israelis died total. The western media presented these attacks as Israel 'retaliating'. That's some retaliation... and means Israel killed roughly 67% more civilians than militants.

I'm fairly certain that not even a majority of them died from WP, but if you have evidence of that please share. WP is commonly used as a smoke screen in urban settings and I think it's plausible that a significant portion of its use was for that purpose.

While pondering that plausibility, take a look at these.

Smoke-screens? "Precision" weaponry? Looks like buildings on fire to me.

 

[Grieves]

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

worth a watch.

 

[Grieves]

It's also worth noting that the acute inhalation of the smoke from white phosphorus can negatively effect liver, kidney, and respiratory function.

 

[jvnk08]

I understand the difference between how the two weapons work. Again, the Department of Defense has specifically labeled WP a chemical weapon, and as a motivator for military action no less. One can fiss-fuddle over semantics, but Desert Storm happened.

It fits neither the definition of chemical weapons under the Geneva convention nor the CWC's definition. It's designed and used for explicitly different reasons than liquid and gaseous poisons. It's a "chemical weapon" in semantics only. Saddam used actual nerve agents on the Kurds and Iranians.

I tried to find this statistic on the PCHR page, nothing is coming up. I did however find this actual list of names of the dead. 950 civilians doesn't sound entirely unreasonable, given the propensity to label any young male a militant. Consider though, that during the actual 4 month 'War', 9 Israelis died total. The western media presented these attacks as Israel 'retaliating'. That's some retaliation... and means Israel killed roughly 67% more civilians than militants.

Despite the disproportionate response from the Israelis, lets not forget that neither side is free of guilt. It's an awful situation with no clear "good" solutions, but bone-headed religious fundamentalism is helping about as little as unwarranted expansionism.

While pondering that plausibility, take a look at these.

Yes, I'm well aware of how terrible WP can be. But, sticking strictly to the facts, the comparison between Israel's use of WP during the Gaza War and the Ghouta attacks is invalid. Vastly different scenarios with both different outcomes and different implications as a result of each.

Also, some further details as to the murky legal status of WP:

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, not the Chemical Weapons Convention, goes on, in its Protocol III, to prohibit the use of all air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations, or for indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.[96] However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has often been read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. Several countries, most notably Israel, are not signatories to Protocol III.

Smoke-screens? "Precision" weaponry? Looks like buildings on fire to me.

Precision here is relative. It's not precise like a ballistic weapon, no. But then again it's not subject to atmospheric conditions spreading it far from the initial point it was dispersed, or collecting and lingering for months and years afterwards.

It's also worth noting that the acute inhalation of the smoke from white phosphorus can negatively effect liver, kidney, and respiratory function.

Yes, though again, that's neither the reason it's developed or used.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m³, the same as fuel-oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m³.

Mustard Gas is the weakest of the common chemical weapons when it comes to risk from inhalation, just FYI.

 

[Oxymoron]

Can anyone point out to me any substantive evidence as to culpability contained in this blurb/statement by the U.S govt, because I cannot discern any?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...n-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21

 

[Grieves]

again, I understand the difference between the weapons and how they function/their effects, and I understand the line you're drawing. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy at work here, and how it speaks toward a conspiracy. In 1991, White Phosphorus was a chemical weapon according to the Department of Defense, and Saddam's usage of it was a war-crime. A decade or so later, Israel is dropping the stuff on civilians within its own borders, punishing an entire population for the actions of a scant few individuals, and we don't do a thing about it, because white phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon anymore... and never mind that the Geneva convention is being violated in other equally serious ways:

"Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

In Syria there's an actual Civil War taking place, in which both sides are inflicting heavy casualties on one another, and suddenly that sense of moral outrage that America seemingly forgot about during the slaughter in Gaza is supposedly back full-force, our will to punish war-criminals (abroad of course, never at home) returned with a vengeance just in time to start a bombing campaign on Iran's doorstep. It seems clear a tragic attack took place in Syria, but that's all that's clear about it at the moment... and yet here we are on the verge of ANOTHER War, or more accurately to my mind another branch of the same campaign, based on shaky information and a sudden up-swell of morality. Convenient morality is worthy of suspicion.

 

[Pete Tar]

...Convenient morality is worthy of suspicion.

But convenient morality and hypocrisy don't automatically equate to conspiracy, your fondness for finding conspiracy is taking a common human trait as evidence for it.

 

[Grieves]

But convenient morality and hypocrisy don't automatically equate to conspiracy, your fondness for finding conspiracy is taking a common human trait as evidence for it.

You're right, not automatically. But we're talking about warfare on the geopolitical stage here. If you want evidence indicative of a conspiracy, take a look a the dance the Obama administration is doing around the concept of America forcing a regime-change. It's a comically twisted tango that weakens the 'moral outrage' position considerably.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Wow.... vid on the evening news supposedly showing Syrian rebels executing captured Syrian government troops. Wow...

 

[Grieves]

Yeah, just caught it, as well as a ridiculous interview between McCain and Legolas Cooper. It's unfortunate, but it's nothing new... literally in that it's footage from 2012, figuratively in that such events have been being reported for some time now.

 

[Joe]

On the subject of Israel, we're all aware they were dropping chemical weapons on Gaza between 2008 and 2009, yes? That they lied about it to the UN, right up until one the shells hit the UN headquarters in Gaza? If chemical weapons are such a 'red line', and the impending military action in Syria is all about the humanitarian effort to prevent further use of chemical weapons, where was the military action against Israel then? Interesting that when a business partner uses chemical weapons against citizens within its own borders they get a wag of the finger, whereas when an obstruction is alleged to have done it, bombing the fuck out of them is the only moral thing to do.

Bill clinton also gassed people in Waco texas many of them children ,

 

[Joe]

I think they lost all support for this War . Watch Mc cain get his @ss chewed out

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

Tear gas is a different kettle of fish to mustard or sarin gas. Tear gas CAN kill in the right situations. Mustard and sarin will kill with even minor exposure.

 

[Joe]

Tear gas is a different kettle of fish to mustard or sarin gas. Tear gas CAN kill in the right situations. Mustard and sarin will kill with even minor exposure.

Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by most nations in 1993 with all but five other nations signing between the years of 1994 through 1997. still illegal to use at least in war but not on your own people

 

[Oxymoron]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/sins-o...ism-within-syrian-rebel-organizations/5319636

On October 23, 2012, Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations Bashar Ja'afari sent a letter to the President of the United Nations Security Council and to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon listing 108 foreign individuals arrested in the Syrian Arab Republic . All individuals were engaged in terrorist activities within Syria . Many of these terrorists were members of Al Qaeda in Iraq , others were jihadists from Lebanon, Jordan, Tunisia, Libya, Palestine, Egypt and Australia.

In an interview I had with Ambassador Ja'afari, he confirmed that this letter was also circulated to all United Nations committees concerned with counter-terrorism. The letter was not translated from the Arabic for several months. Although the relevant United Nations organs were established to address precisely the crisis of the international spread of terrorism, absolutely no action was taken by any of these United Nations committees to halt or even address this massive invasion into Syria by foreign terrorists who joined the Syrian "rebels."

United Nations Resolution 1963, Adopted by the Security Council on 20 December, 2010 states:

"Reaffirming that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed, and remaining determined to contribute further to enhancing the effectiveness of the overall effort to fight this scourge on a global level."

On November 21, 2012, Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari presented a second letter to the President of the UN Security Council, and to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, containing another list of 143 "Foreign and Arab individuals who were killed in Syria while carrying out their terrorist activities. The list includes information about each individual: name, age, date and place of death, and nationality. The majority of the individuals entered the Syrian Arab Republic illegally, and they hold passports of different nationalities such as: Qatari, Saudi, Tunisians, Egyptian, Sudanese, Libyans, Afghani, Jordanians, Turks, Yamani, Iraqi, Azerbaijani, Chechnya , Kuwaitis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Algerians, Chadian and Pakistani."

Ambassador Ja'afari confirmed, in our interview that, again, the translation of the letter from the Arabic was delayed, inexplicably. He confirmed that this second letter was again circulated to all United Nations committees dealing with counter-terrorism. Again, absolutely no action was taken by these committees whose responsibility it is to halt the massive spread of terrorists such as are now invading Syria to join the Syrian "opposition." Absolutely no action was taken by the UN Security Council to halt this influx of foreign terrorists into Syria , or even to address these letters, despite the fact that many of these jihadists were members of Al Qaeda.

Evidently, all terrorism in unjustifiable, but some terrorism is justifiable. This incriminating double standard is revealed in two resolutions adopted by the Security Council almost simultaneously with the Syrian Ambassador's letters, which continue to be ignored. Resolution 2078, adopted on November 28, 2012, on the Democratic Republic of the Congo states: "Expresses deep concern at reports indicating that external support continues to be provided to the M23, including through troop reinforcement, tactical advice and the supply of equipment, causing a significant increase of the military abilities of the M23, and reiterates its demand that any and all outside support to the M23 cease immediately."

On December 20, 2012, Security Council Resolution 2085, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter was unanimously adopted, stating: "Demands that Malian rebel groups cut off all ties to terrorist organizations, notably Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and associated groups, and take concrete and visible steps to this effect, takes note of the listing of Movement of Unity and Jihad in Western Africa (MUJWA) on the Al-Qaeda sanctions list established and maintained by the Committee pursuant to Resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) and further reiterates its readiness to continue to adopt further targeted sanctions, under the above-mentioned regime, against those rebel groups and individuals who do not cut off all ties to Al-Qaeda and associated groups, including AQIM and MUJWA."

 

[Pete Tar]

Anyone know anything about this?

U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power told the liberal Center for American Progress on Friday that non-military alternatives to attacking Syria had been exhausted.
She cited repeated steps by Russia, joined at times by China, to undermine U.N. Security Council action on Syria over the past two years. Because of Russia, Power said, "the Security Council was not even able to put out a statement expressing its disapproval" of the August 21 chemical weapons attack.

I found this from last year...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/w...th-toll-said-to-rise.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
UNITED NATIONS — A United Nations Security Council effort to end the violence in Syria collapsed in acrimony with a double veto by Russia and China on Saturday, hours after the Syrian military attacked the city of Homs in what opposition leaders described as the deadliest government assault in the nearly 11-month uprising.
...
The Security Council voted 13 to 2 in favor of a resolution backing an Arab League peace plan for Syria, but passage was blocked by Russia and China, which opposed what they saw as a potential violation of Syria's sovereignty. The support of those countries has proved crucial in bolstering the Syrian government's confidence, despite an isolation more pronounced than any time since the Assad family seized power more than four decades ago.
...
"What more do we need to know to act decisively in the Security Council?" Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fumed at a news conference in Munich. "To block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria."
...
President Obama condemned what he called "the Syrian government's unspeakable assault against the people of Homs," saying in a statement that Mr. Assad "has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community." He accused Syria of having "murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children."

So obviously he has expressed concern before, the idea that he's only said anything in response to the chemical weapons use is false.

 

[Oxymoron]

Anyone know anything about this?

U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power told the liberal Center for American Progress on Friday that non-military alternatives to attacking Syria had been exhausted.
She cited repeated steps by Russia, joined at times by China, to undermine U.N. Security Council action on Syria over the past two years. Because of Russia, Power said, "the Security Council was not even able to put out a statement expressing its disapproval" of the August 21 chemical weapons attack.

China and Russia are two of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The U.S cannot go around ignoring international laws and agreements just because it gets vetoed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council resolutions.

There are 15 members of the Security Council. This includes five veto-wielding permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—based on the great powers that were the victors of World War II.[1] There are also 10 non-permanent members, with five elected each year to serve two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter. The current non-permanent members are Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Korea, and Togo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations

The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of the Charter by the five then-permanent members of the Security Council—France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States

At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (for assisting in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The UN's most prominent position is that of the office of Secretary-General which has been held by Ban Ki-moon of South Korea since 2007. NGOs may be granted consultative status with ECOSOC and other agencies to participate in the UN's work.

The U.N has condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria but there is little support for Obama's plans to attack.

If U.S goes ahead, it will be acting illegally even if Congress back Obama.

U.S will be acting illegally to enforce International Law if it goes ahead without the U.N backing.

President Obama condemned what he called "the Syrian government's unspeakable assault against the people of Homs," saying in a statement that Mr. Assad "has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community." He accused Syria of having "murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children."

Being as how the U.S Govt is behind the Govt 'opposition' in Syria, it is hardly surprising that Obama would object to Assad fighting back.

Perhaps if the U.S Govt were to be as vocal and pressing against all injustice in the area, inc Israel, Saudi, Oman, Bahrain etc... they would have more credibility. As it is the U.S has no credibility in most of the worlds eyes.

 

[Mick West]

(deleted some off-topic posts)

Let's try to keep on topic - who was behind the chemical weapons attacks. Once could easily point to possible motives in many corners, so that really rather pointless. What is the actual evidence?

 

[Pete Tar]

China and Russia are two of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The U.S cannot go around ignoring international laws and agreements just because it gets vetoed...

The U.N has condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria but there is little support for Obama's plans to attack.
...

No that is not really what I was asking - the claim was the UN was vetoed from condemning the august attacks by Russia and China. I am wondering was it just a blanket condemnation of the attacks without blaming any particular party, or was it specifically the Assad regime that was to be blamed for it and condemned.
If there was no proof of who did it either way then I guess it would not be completely unreasonable to vetoe a censure against Assad if they don't believe he was responsible - but one wonders what the motivation was. The wording of the vetoed statement would be more enlightening.

Edit... this bit
Because of Russia, Power said, "the Security Council was not even able to put out a statement expressing its disapproval" of the August 21 chemical weapons attack.

 

[John Smith]

John McCain DESTROYED in a town meeting.. "I'd have you arrested for treason."

 

[Oxymoron]

No that is not really what I was asking - the claim was the UN was vetoed from condemning the august attacks by Russia and China. I am wondering was it just a blanket condemnation of the attacks without blaming any particular party, or was it specifically the Assad regime that was to be blamed for it and condemned.
If there was no proof of who did it either way then I guess it would not be completely unreasonable to vetoe a censure against Assad if they don't believe he was responsible - but one wonders what the motivation was. The wording of the vetoed statement would be more enlightening.

Edit... this bit
Because of Russia, Power said, "the Security Council was not even able to put out a statement expressing its disapproval" of the August 21 chemical weapons attack.

Excellent point Pete... I did a bit of research and everything related to that allegation appears to trace back to Samantha Power but I cannot substantiate it.

However, after reading her unabridged address on behalf of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations on September 6, 2013, what stood out to me were these telling points.

http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/213901.htm

Good afternoon. I'm very glad to be back in Washington this afternoon, and among so many friends here at the Center for American Progress. As you know, my topic today is Syria, which presents one of the most critical foreign policy challenges we face.

Syria is important because it lies at the heart of a region critical to U.S. security, a region that is home to friends and partners and one of our closest allies. It is important because the Syrian regime possesses stores of chemical weapons that they have recently used on a large scale and that we cannot allow to fall into terrorists' hands

.
So it is a region critical to U.S security? Why? Because of the oil? But how many times have I heard people argue on here...'U.S doesn't need the M.E oil... we have our own ... it is unimportant to us, why would we keep going to war over it and toppling govt over it'?

So the 'region', (3000 miles away) is 'critical, because of it's friends, (who secure 'its' oil and ensure it trades in U.S$), Saudi, Oman, Bahrain etc. Americas friend... every one a butcher and a tyrant but 'Americas friends' none the less. And of course Israel, the big fat venomous spider sat in the middle of the web, dripping poison which permeates the whole region like some NWO vision of whats to come. Israel the elite 'gated community', ringed by a massive steel and concrete wall topped with miles of razor wire and machine gun posts pointing out like something from a Mad Max movie over the decimated open wasteland that comprises the open prison of Palestine.

So why the imperative to act now?

In arguing for limited military action in the wake of this mass casualty chemical weapons atrocity, we are not arguing that Syrian lives are worth protecting only when they are threatened with poison gas. Rather, we are reaffirming what the world has already made plain in laying down its collective judgment on chemical weapons: there is something different about chemical warfare that raises the stakes for the United States and raises the stakes for the world.

Ah, so that sounds reasonable, it is because being killed by CW's is more abhorrent than having your head sawn off by Al Nusra with a breadknife or blown up with a missile or deformed or burned to death with White Phosphorous or dying from cancers induced by radioactivity from Depleted Uranium munitions or being born with terrible deformities from the same or from the widespread use of tons of Agent Orange. Got it.

So the U.S is campaigning hard to protect people from such horrors purely on humanitarian grounds, nothing to do with regime change in Syria.

But CW's have been used before haven't they? Iraq against the Kurds and then Iraq against Iran, which then reciprocated and what was the U.S reaction on that occasion.

In 1980 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency filed a report stating that Iraq had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities for several years, which later proved to be accurate.[38] In November 1980, two months into the Iran–Iraq War, the first reported use of chemical weapons took place when Tehran radio reported a poison gas attack on Susangerd by Iraqi forces.[39] The United Nations reported many similar attacks occurred the following year, leading Iran to develop and deploy a mustard gas capability. By 1984, Iraq was using poison gas with great effectiveness against Iranian "human wave" attacks.[verification needed] Chemical weapons were used extensively against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War.[40][41] On January 14, 1991, the Defense Intelligence Agency said an Iraqi agent described, in medically accurate terms, military smallpox casualties he said he saw in 1985 or 1986. Two weeks later, the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center reported that eight of 69 Iraqi prisoners of war whose blood was tested showed a current immunity to smallpox, which had not occurred naturally in Iraq since 1971; the same prisoners had also been inoculated for anthrax. The assumption being that Iraq used both smallpox and anthrax during this war[42] All of this occurring while Iraq was a party to the Geneva Protocol on September 8, 1931, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on October 29, 1969, signed the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, but did not ratify until June 11, 1991. Iraq has not signed to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

So why the discrepancy... the inaction over hundreds of thousands killed by CW's then vs the manic, overzealous campaign to launch into war over a few hundred deaths where the culprit cannot even be identified with any degree of certainty?

But it is even worse than that. Not only is there a huge disparity in the reaction and campaign to punish for an alleged crime. It is a known fact that the U.S helped Iraq deploy these terrible weapons which were still as illegal back in 1980's as they are now.

The Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started providing intelligence to the Iraqi army during the Iran-Iraq War. This included information to target chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and UN expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.[43]

http://theweek.com/article/index/24...dam-hussein-use-chemical-weapons-against-iran

As the Obama administration mulls a military response to punish Syria for allegedly using poison gas to kill hundreds of people in a rebel stronghold, Foreign Policy reports that the U.S. didn't always play the role of the good guy when it came to the use of chemical weapons.

Near the end of Iraq's war with Iran 25 years ago, the U.S., using satellite imagery, warned Iraq that Iranian troops were moving to exploit a hole in its defenses, according to Foreign Policy, citing recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency documents and interviews with former intelligence officials. U.S. officials shared the information with Iraq even though they knew that Saddam Hussein's military was likely to respond by attacking with the lethal nerve agent sarin and other chemical weapons — and he did, killing thousands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Iran_War

extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Iraqi Kurds. At the time of the conflict, the U.N. Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war," and U.S. intelligence officials both knew of Iraqi chemical weapons use and provided Iraq with satellite imagery to guide strikes against Iranian troop concentrations.[26] U.N. statements never clarified that only Iraq was using chemical weapons, and according to retrospective authors "the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian as well as Iraqi Kurds."[27][28][29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

"It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[6]

According to Kenneth R. Timmerman, the "Islamic revolution in Iran upset the entire strategic equation in the region. America's principal ally in the Persian Gulf, the Shah, was swept aside overnight, and no one else on the horizon could replace him as the guarantor of U.S. interests in the region."[4]

During the crisis, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein attempted to take advantage of the disorder of the Revolution, the weakness of the Iranian military and the revolution's antagonism with Western governments.

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[16] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[17]

So I wonder why people do not trust the U.S govt and recognise it at the top, for what it is, hypocritical, warmongering, greedy, lying, twisting S.O.B's that would sell their own grandmothers out, if it benefited them.

 

[John Smith]

Wow.... Syrian woman confronts John McCain