Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Syrian blast was chemical warhead glitch-magazine (Update)
Reuters ^ | 9/19/2007 | unattributed

Posted on 09/19/2007 12:06:09 PM PDT by mojito

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last
To: DoughtyOne
but wonder why you would say that Russia moved to Syria things you say didn’t exist, and that Syria didn’t need.

....They could have advanced their biological WMD capability with Saddams’s biological toys....

...What remained was secretive and many believe the Russians eventually moved that to Syria....

Those quotes conflict with your assessment.

61 posted on 09/19/2007 8:16:25 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mojito
An original thread on this :

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.

62 posted on 09/19/2007 9:15:22 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Here's your original comment:

The presence of Iraqi WMD’s in Syria is not THE major issue now.
Syria had and has the most advanced chemical WMD warfare capability in the middle east. They could have advanced their biological WMD capability with Saddams’s biological toys. Saddam eventually sent most of his nuclear research to Libya where it was safe from Israeli raids. Most of Saddams stuff was destroyed from Air Raids during Gulf War I. What remained was secretive and many believe the Russians eventually moved that to Syria. Syria and Iran both have known Chemical WMD capabilities. No reason to bring in a fog of war by relating that known capability to Saddam’s ‘apparently’ destroyed capability.


It seems to me you made the case that the disposition of Saddam's WMDs was no longer imporatant.  To you and me that may be true.  To the U.S. Citizen in the United States it's still very important.  The left clings to the belief that Bush lied.  Now, every time WMDs are shown to have been in Iraq, it matters a great deal.  The die hard left won't get it, but the average U.S. Citizen certainly will.  It is important.  It still helps to justify the inception of a war effort that the media has sought to downplay the need for constantly.

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 Saddam’s ‘apparently’ destroyed capability."  This seems contradictory to me.

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.


Here's your second comment:

but wonder why you would say that Russia moved to Syria things you say didn’t exist, and that Syria didn’t need.

....They could have advanced their biological WMD capability with Saddams’s biological toys....

...What remained was secretive and many believe the Russians eventually moved that to Syria....

Those quotes conflict with your assessment.

Didn't you say this?

No reason to bring in a fog of war by relating that known capability to Saddam’s ‘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.  Don't you see somewhat of a conflict here?

You told me that the dispositon of WMDs wasn't a major issue.  Syria already had WMDs a known capability, and I shouldn't bring in a fog of war mentioning Saddam's 'apparently' destroyed capability.

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.  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.

I appreciate the responses.  Hope you can understand where I'm coming from here.

63 posted on 09/19/2007 10:31:56 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Sorry Hillderella, but the Hsu fits... and king Lerach would like a call. < wicked witch laughter >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
It seems to me you made the case that the disposition of Saddam's WMDs was no longer imporatant. To you and me that may be true. To the U.S. Citizen in the United States it's still very important. The left clings to the belief that Bush lied. Now, every time WMDs are shown to have been in Iraq, it matters a great deal. The die hard left won't get it, but the average U.S. Citizen certainly will. It is important. It still helps to justify the inception of a war effort that the media has sought to downplay the need for constantly.

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 Saddam’s ‘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 Saddam’s ‘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.

64 posted on 09/20/2007 2:17:36 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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........


65 posted on 09/20/2007 5:14:02 AM PDT by Red Badger (ALL that CARBON in ALL that oil & coal was once in the atmospere. We're just putting it back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1898490/posts


66 posted on 09/20/2007 9:29:08 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Wednesday, September 12, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito
Darn those gremlins...


67 posted on 09/20/2007 9:35:06 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Ron Paul put the cuckoo in my Cocoa Puffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Take care.


68 posted on 09/20/2007 9:44:30 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Sorry Hillderella, but the Hsu fits... and king Lerach would like a call. < wicked witch laughter >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I don’t doubt it. We’re going to rue the day Jimmy Carter interjected himself into the Korean issue.


69 posted on 09/20/2007 9:47:07 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Sorry Hillderella, but the Hsu fits... and king Lerach would like a call. < wicked witch laughter >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson