Syria has chemical weapons

flashgordon1952 · 23/07/12 - 22:31

But says it will not use them ! Do you believe them ??
Except offcourse if they are being invaded...

[Deleted User] · 23/07/12 - 22:33

Source, evidence, links ....etc etc

phylo_roadking · 23/07/12 - 22:37

Try the BBC, it's just been near the top of the 10 pm news.

roland rat · 23/07/12 - 22:39

TheGladiator wrote: »

Source, evidence, links ....etc etc

I heard the same story on the news, if international troops invade syria, then syria will lauch chemical weapons at them, so I say, we send in china and russian troops, and see what syria does

zx50 · 23/07/12 - 22:43

Why create a weapon that can cause so much more destruction that's necessary? Something fishy going on there.

Hieronymous · 23/07/12 - 22:44

TheGladiator wrote: »

Source, evidence, links ....etc etc

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/23/uk-syria-crisis-chemical-arsenal-idUKBRE86M0ZP20120723

Regis Magnae · 23/07/12 - 22:47

roland rat wrote: »

I heard the same story on the news, if international troops invade syria, then syria will lauch chemical weapons at them, so I say, we send in china and russian troops, and see what syria does

If China and Russian troops (they already do have some presence there) were to enter the country it would firmly be to support Assad.

I don't know why this is news all of a sudden, the presence and possible use of chemical weapons has been known for a long time.

David (2) · 23/07/12 - 22:48

I expect theres many top level meetings going on around the world as to "what can we do if they decide to use them".

Caldari · 23/07/12 - 22:49

The only reason China and Russia keep vetoing any plan of intervention is because they know that the 3rd rate kit that they flogged to Assad and his regime would not be 'fit for purpose'.

[Deleted User] · 23/07/12 - 22:50

roland rat wrote: »

I heard the same story on the news, if international troops invade syria, then syria will lauch chemical weapons at them, so I say, we send in china and russian troops, and see what syria does

are we sure this isn't just brinkmanship? Then again he is probably capable of this.

wns_195 · 23/07/12 - 22:54

They could be Saddam Hussein's weapons, then it wouldn't be a lie to say Iraq had WMDs.

Caldari · 23/07/12 - 22:56

wns_195 wrote: »

They could be Saddam Hussein's weapons, then it wouldn't be a lie to say Iraq had WMDs.

Well, quite a number of Iraqi airforce jets did make high-speed runs for the Syrian border on day one of the invasion.

phylo_roadking · 23/07/12 - 22:58

They don't need to be Iraqi weapons; if the Syrians had the capacity to reach for nuclear weapons, they certainly had the technology to attain home-brewed chemical ones!

bingoman · 23/07/12 - 23:06

wns_195 wrote: »

They could be Saddam Hussein's weapons, then it wouldn't be a lie to say Iraq had WMDs.

I could not see Saddam at the time moving his WMD (if they had some) to the Next neighbouring State, where the Syrianian and Iraqi Government best mates

phylo_roadking · 23/07/12 - 23:07

Newsnight now....

21stCenturyBoy · 23/07/12 - 23:10

When will that nutjob Assad be told, the germicidal hand cream stashed in the first ladies handbag does not constitute a chemical weapon.

reglip · 23/07/12 - 23:11

so.....and we have nukes and would use them if we were invaded. Is this supposed to be shocking news?

KIIS102 · 23/07/12 - 23:15

I think there was some reports a couple of weeks ago that they were already using gas based weapons on people in villages but no hard proof which I suppose isn't a shock when they won't allow media in.

I'd imagine the Russians had told Assad if he uses such weapons then the West will go in and the Russians won't be able to stop them. It would probably be a step too far. I hate to say it but I think they will use them on their own citizens, considering how far it's already got, it wouldn't be surprising.

archiver · 23/07/12 - 23:18

zx50 wrote: »

Why create a weapon that can cause so much more destruction that's necessary? Something fishy going on there.

But I think the idea is that chemical weapons just kill the people, while leaving the infrastructure more intact than if conventional weapons were used.

BomoLad · 23/07/12 - 23:19

You wouldn't announce you had chemical weapons if you had them and/or intention of using them, would you?

phylo_roadking · 23/07/12 - 23:20

I hate to say it but I think they will use them on their own citizens, considering how far it's already got, it wouldn't be surprising.

Of course they would; don't forget that the "tribal" issue in Syrian politics is right down at the heart of all this - in extremis Assad would be perfectly willing to use chemical weapons in non-Alawite areas...after all, he has already turned heavy weapons and helicopter gunships on communities without the ability to defend themselves against those....

You wouldn't announce you had chemical weapons if you had them and/or intention of using them, would you?

Of course you would - if your enemy doesn't have them

And I doubt the FSA has!

But I think the idea is that chemical weapons just kill the people, while leaving the infrastructure more intact than if conventional weapons were used

Use of chemical weapons in the Near East has generally been for different reasons than "First World" nations would have used them in a modern or Cold War environment and battlefield; they would have been used as an area denial weapon because of the time they linger in the environment...and to inhibit the enemies' capacity to function, to "run" a war properly in a gassed area - whereas in Third World countries it would be "simply" to kill people!

jenzie · 23/07/12 - 23:35

pfft ..... since when?

jjesso123 · 23/07/12 - 23:39

Here is the BBC link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18963720

The sharp international response came hours after Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi gave Damascus's first implicit acknowledgement that a chemical weapons stockpile existed.

The weapons were safely stored, he said, and Syria would never use them against its civilians but only "in case of external aggression". In an attempt to retain some doubt about his country's unconventional weapons arsenal he later tweeted "if they exist".

phylo_roadking · 23/07/12 - 23:41

For some time, actually! They're supposed to have the capability to manufacture Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard gas...all the late 20th century nasties

While Syria has not previously, until today, publicly admitted to its chemical weapons program, Syrian officials have stated that they feel it appropriate to have some deterrent against Israel's similarly non-admitted nuclear weapons program when questioned about the topic...and it is, after all, one of only seven nations which are not parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention!

A number of probable production centres have been identified by humint and satellite observation - http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/facility.htm

kibblerok · 23/07/12 - 23:46

So what? We probably made them or sold them to them at one point... Or we're at least involved somehow. Even if we weren't we provably knew about it and turned a blind eye like we expect others to do when peddling arms around the world.

Let's keep our beak out for once and let the UN sort this out.

avagardner320 · 23/07/12 - 23:46

I do hope you guys remember you're talking about real people. Not a 'country'. Why would you title your thread that way when you don't even know.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Syria has chemical weapons

Comments