Skip to comments.Israel: Syria Has Been Using Chemical Weapons
Posted on 04/23/2013 3:23:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Israel's top military intelligence official said Tuesday that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons repeatedly, and he criticized the international community for not taking tougher action against the Syrian leadership.
Israel and the Syrian opposition have on multiple occasions accused President Bashar Assad's government of using chemical weapons in the country's civil war, but have not offered much in the way of evidence.
Israeli Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, speaking at a security conference in Israel, gave the most definitive statement so far by an Israeli official.
"To the best of our professional understanding, the regime used lethal chemical weapons against the militants in a series of incidents over the past months," Brun said, according to an Associated Press report from Tel Aviv. "Shrunken pupils, foaming at the mouth and other signs indicate, in our view, that lethal chemical weapons were used."
Brun appeared to be referring to attacks that took place near the capital, Damascus, and the northern city of Aleppo on March 19, and an attack in the city of Homs on Dec. 23.
The Israeli military believed that sarin, a lethal nerve agent, was probably used, Brun added.
President Obama, meanwhile, has warned Syria against using chemical weapons and stressed that if they are deployed, it would cross a "red line" and could provoke a U.S. response. However, the U.S. has said only that it is monitoring the situation and has not accused Syria of using chemical weapons.
Syria is believed to have a large chemical weapons arsenal, but has denied using them and has on occasion claimed that the rebels employed them.
Some Western military analysts have argued that the Syrian military still has plenty of conventional firepower, including aircraft and artillery, and therefore would have no pressing need to use chemical weapons.
In addition, analysts note, chemical weapons attacks could increase the likelihood that countries opposed to the Assad regime might intervene more directly in the conflict, which began more than two years ago and has left tens of thousands dead.
Following requests by Britain and France, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said a month ago that the U.N. was launching an investigation into the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria. However, the Syrian government has largely blocked that effort.
Did he send the WMDs to Syria? ( After all, both are Baathist parties ).
The curious thing is Saddam used these Chemical weapons on the Kurds ( slaughtering over 5,000 of them ), but they suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth when the inspectors were looking for them.
Inquiring minds want to know...
But it isn’t our problem, either or any way.
“But it isnt our problem, either or any way.”
Our loser-in-chief manages to pick the losing teams in sports and the wrong side in politics. If for him alone, I think we need to steer clear until we have adults at the helm.
After we get adults running the place again, we need to back Israel and let them protect the west’s interests.
The warmongers at NPR are leading the charge, I see.
Muslims killing other Muslims. Somehow I am not concerned.
The line has been crossed, bambi. Now what?
Chemical weapons are quite easy to fabricate, by any nation with a chemical industry. Typically the US had very highly concentrated, very dangerous, but binary weapons, that were far safer until just before, or even during use, such as chemicals that would mix while flying in an artillery round.
The Russians, and thus the Syrians their allies, preferred far simpler weapons, often crudely stored in 55 gallon drums.
But lower order chemical weapons can be just as effective against soldiers and civilians without protection. Several are actually World War I, a hundred years old, technology, not sophisticated at all.
This being said, all the rebels, or Israelis would have to do is produce some soil or other samples containing such contaminants. Often not hard to do if the chemical weapons are “skin contact” with a low vapor hazard.
During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians went with some UN inspectors to get such samples. They parked with a wheel of their jeep atop an unexploded chemical artillery round.
And while the UN people were wearing full body butyl rubber protective suits, the Iranians just put plastic bags over their boots, wore rubber gloves, wore a surgical mask and glasses, and used a wrench to open the artillery round. The liquid within they drained into a canteen cup, covered it with plastic wrap which was held on by a rubber band.
“Here’s your sample”.
We haven’t had adults running the foreign policy of the United States for the past twenty years and I’m not optimistic for an improvement no matter which party wins the next election.
Even without chemical weapons, Assad and his bunch know full-well that there will be a genocide if he falls...and just not his inner circle, but just about everyone who’s not a Sunni - and that includes the Christians, and there are a lot of them. Additionally, it’s obvious to everyone that Chechens and mercenaries from that part of the world are leading the fight against him.
Given that situation, you use the tools available...or get tortured and die...and remember who started this thing.
Check the labels.
RE: But it isnt our problem, either or any way.
My main interest is the charge against Bush of invading Iraq under FALSE CHARGES.
They couldn’t find any WMD’s .. therefore Bush lied, People died.
Well, if Iraq DID transfer them to Syria, then Bush didn’t lie after all and the invasion was justified.
I was happier with Congolese Rice than Henry Kissinger. Hillary was an idiot and Kerry is even worse. I think, of the bunch, that Rice did the best job. But we need a Ronald Reagan at the top. I don’t even see his like on the radar.
Are there any good Muslims to side with? Ultimately they ALL want to convert or kill you.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
Assad wouldn't do that, any more than Sadaam would.
I’m with you 100%, don’t get me wrong.
But Bush will NEVER be vindicated, no matter how right he was. His bigger mistake was the claim about WMDs - that was NOT necessary. His case was made once Hussain started interfering with our inspectors, and even shooting at our planes - he should have used that rationale, for the AGREED to it, to save Bagdad from our troops in 1991.
When mohammedans are killing other mohammedans just stand back and let them have at it.
Perhaps Syrian made or perhaps from the Iraqi stockpile. But it’s a fact the Iraqi bio-chem arsenal was transferred, largely with the assistance of the Russians, during the 14 month lead up to the 2003 invasion. Could never grasp why this was never exposed by the Bush administration. It was well attested to by multiple sources while it was happening. Instead they allowed the idiotic “No WMD’s ... Bush Lied” story to prosper, one result of which was the catastrophe of Obama’s election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.