Posted on 09/19/2007 12:06:09 PM PDT by mojito
An explosion at a Syrian military complex in July which killed 15 soldiers was a bid to arm a chemical warhead and was not caused by a heatwave as Damascus said, according to Jane's Defence Weekly.
Syria had said temperatures up to 50 degrees Celsius (122 Fahrenheit) caused an ammunition dump to explode, killing the soldiers and wounding another 50.
But Jane's Defence, quoting Syrian defence sources, said the blast occurred as Syrian weapons experts, with Iranian backing, were attempting to activate a 500-km-range (300-mile-range) "Scud C" missile with a mustard gas warhead.
"The explosion occurred when fuel caught alight in the missile production laboratory," the magazine said, quoting the sources.
"The blast dispersed chemical agents (including VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent) across the storage facility and outside. Other Iranian engineers were seriously injured with chemical burns to exposed body parts."
The sources said dozens of Iranian missile engineers were killed along with the 15 Syrians.
The magazine also pointed out that the explosion occurred at about 4:30 a.m., two hours before sunrise, when temperatures have barely begun to rise, let alone reach 50 C.
Syrian officials were not immediately available to comment on the Jane's story.
The article, to be published in the Sept. 29 edition, said the Syrian-Iranian cooperation at the classified military production facility in Aleppo, northern Syria, was the result of a two-year-old weapons agreement between the two nations.
Under the deal, the magazine said, Iran agreed to supply Syria with weapons and ammunition, train Syrian personnel, and help transfer technology for weapons of mass destruction, including chemical-warfare systems.
It said the agreement, signed in November 2005, had led to the establishment of five pilot facilities in Syria aimed at producing chemical weapon precursors.
As a result of the explosion on July 26, Jane's said an Iranian-Syrian programme to arm short-range ballistic missiles with chemical warheads had been aborted.
....They could have advanced their biological WMD capability with Saddamss biological toys....
...What remained was secretive and many believe the Russians eventually moved that to Syria....
Those quotes conflict with your assessment.
Explosion at northern Syrian military complex kills 15 soldiers
**************************EXCERPT INTRO******************************
An explosion went off at an ordnance depot inside a military complex outside the Syrian city of Aleppo on Thursday, killing at least 15 soldiers and wounding 50 others, the state news agency said.
The SANA news agency said the blast was caused when high summer temperatures set off high-explosive materials at the depot, adding that the explosion was not the result of sabotage.
The explosion resulted from the combustion of sensitive, highly-explosive material caused by extremely high temperatures, SANA said.
The depot belonged to a military unit in Musalmiya, some 10 kilometers from Aleppo, 350 kilometers north of Damascus, the agency said.
I am a US citizen. Are your stating that you are not ? This thread generally seems to be concerned about the lives that are at stake right now due to actual WMD that Syria now possess and has possessed since before Gulf War II. Politics of Saddam's WMD is not THE major issue now. No reason to bring it up on every thread concerning REAL WMD weapons that are now in theater. It only weakens the case and brings too much baggage into the present day situation. I believe the expression is, 'no need to flog a dead horse'. Syria has known chemical WMD capabilities and they should not even be tied to Saddam's history.
BTW, you mentioned that Syria had a chemical ability that was quite advanced. Then you mentioned that they probably benefited from Iraqs biological weapons technology. Okay, so why did you procede to state, "No reason to bring in a fog of war by relating that known capability to Saddams apparently destroyed capability." This seems contradictory to me.
There is no uncertainty concerning Syria's Domestic Chemical WMD capabilities. What Saddam could have given them is immaterial. So saying that Syria acquired Chemical capabilities from Saddam only adds to the fog of war and is immaterial. Before Gulf War II, Syria was only suspected of having a Biological WMD capability. Acquiring some of Saddam's Biological capabilities could have been a benefit to Syria and could have advanced their capabilities. So the 'fog of war' from the Biological WMD possibilities may be relevant. If you note, this thread is about a 'chemical warhead'. When you refer to Biological, Chemical and Nuclear WMD as only 'WMD', you fall into the leftist trap. No one suspected Saddam had functional Nuclear capabilities, only that he still had some active research. We were later surprised by what Libya had acquired from Saddam. We did however suspect that Saddam still possessed Chemical and Biological WMD which he admitted having but claimed was destroyed. The UN could not verify the destruction and thus, we invaded to verify. The left has made the whole Saddam WMD issue simplified and encapsulated for the average couch potato. That was done for political opportunism and obviously it had no effect on Israels WMD deterrent capability.
In the first paragraph, the comments highlited in red seem to state that the WMDs don't matter Syria had a great capability. In the Green you seem to say that well, yes, Syria did benefit from Saddam's WMDs.
Don't ignore the 'biological' and 'chemical' distinction when discussing WMD. You end up falling into the leftist trap.
No reason to bring in a fog of war by relating that known capability to Saddams apparently destroyed capability. I realize at some points you stated, that Hussein did have WMDs, and then this seems to say his weapons had been destroyed.
The word apparently was placed in quotes for a reason. That generally means the writer is quoting someone else and it is not stating what the writer actually believes. Why else would I have used quotes ?
Look, you and I probably agree a lot more than we disagee, but I don't understand why you took the route you did in replying to me. It's as if you played down the idea that anything was moved to Syria, because Syria already had WMDs..
Because it fogs up the importance of these issues by bringing in a dead man. There is no reason to always post 'maybe they are Saddam's WMD' to every thread about Syria's WMD. That is all I am suggesting. But do what you want. Free country and all.
Then you proceded to tell me Syria could in fact benefit, from what Russia moved there. Then you procede to mention Saddam's 'appearantly'' destoryed capability. This seemed to go back and forth to me.
Again, it helps communication if we define precisely what we are talking about. Chemical, Biological and Nuclear are three completely different classes of WMD. They require vastly different research and manufacture facilities and capabilities. Anyways, I am bailing on this specific topic. Have fun.
North Korea has their fingers in this, I’m sure, by way of Iran. A report the other day said that a NK ship had re-flagged as a South Korean vessel, and had docked in a Syrian port just a few weeks back........
Take care.
I don’t doubt it. We’re going to rue the day Jimmy Carter interjected himself into the Korean issue.
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.