Our Involvement In Syria...

[jeds]

Just for the record, the shock horror headline referring to 'nerve gas chemicals' is false and misleading. Potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride are schedule 2 chemicals used in hundreds of everyday manufacturing processes. Sodium fluoride is used in toothpaste, potassium fluoride is used in hair lotions and shampoo. Millions of tons of these chemicals are produced and traded all over the World and there will be hundreds of tons sitting in manufacturing plants all over Syria.

 

[wobs]

So do you take back this statement?:

You mean the chemicals that apparently we've been supplying them?

When you have provided no evidence for it?

As I said, the west has apparently supplied Syria...But don't take my word for it!

Linky Linky 1

Linky Linky 2

Do you take back your post...

A. I've got nothing to take back, as I was asking the question.

B. Your link provides a link to a House of Commons site, which yields this:

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Is it not the case that, although the civil war in Syria started in early 2011, a UK firm was granted a licence to sell chemicals to the regime in 2012, and that was stopped only because of tougher EU sanctions? Is there any murderous regime anywhere with which we are not willing to do business? This illustrates what I have said about Syria. If that process had not been stopped owing to EU sanctions, chemicals would have been sent that could have made the gas that was used against civilians there.

Mr Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a case with a great deal of passion, but without much detailed understanding of what he is talking about. Export licences were granted for some industrial chemicals that could have been used in a process that might be involved in the production of poisonous gases. Those export licences were revoked—no such chemicals were exported. However, I should explain that the problem that we all face is that a significant number of industrial chemicals have perfectly legitimate industrial uses—in this case, I believe, in metal-finishing activities—and we have to maintain the right balance between ensuring that we are not providing materials that could be misused and allowing normal trade to be conducted.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130902/debtext/130902-0001.htm

If you can find evidence on the House of Commons site to contradict this, I'm all for it, to be shown.

I'm for the truth to out, not to support a position.

 

[wobs]

[
Linky Linky 2

A very interesting article.
From it we have:

To boost its own capabilities, Damascus set up the Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC), an agency with a civilian figure head that was run by military intelligence.

It is "the best-equipped research centre in Syria, possessing better technical capacity and equipment than the four Syrian universities," the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a leading non-proliferation group, wrote in May

The SSRC, attacked by rebels and Israeli airstrikes earlier this year, oversees chemical weapons facilities in Dumayr, Khan Abou, Shamat, and Firaqlus, according to the U.S. Centre for Strategic and International Studies. It set up facilities for blister agent, sarin, mustard and VX nerve gas, the Centre said.

So they may have the means to make it, and with some expertise.
And supplied by:

The bulk of chemical and biological weapons production technology came from "large chemical brokerage houses in Holland, Switzerland, France, Austria and Germany," said Globalsecurity, a security information provider.

In the early 1980s, Syria mostly imported French pharmaceuticals, some of them so-called "dual use" chemicals, which could also be used for chemical weapons, it said.

A wide range of industrial chemicals with legal applications, such as in agriculture, are also precursors for chemical weapons. The most important precursors for sarin, the nerve agent believed to have been used in recent fighting in Syria, are methylphosphonyl difluoride and isopropanol.

None of the reports cited named specific companies as suppliers. Syria has said it intended to use the chemicals for agriculture.

Securing raw chemicals on the international market became more difficult in 1985, when suspect sales were restricted by the Australia Group, a 40-nation body that seeks to curb chemical or biological weapons through export controls.

Some experts say Damascus obtained supplies from Russia and Iran instead, but Syria may also have turned to a network of illegal traders using front companies to sell to Iran and Iraq.

Former Russian general Anatoly ****sevich was suspected of smuggling precursor chemicals to VX gas to Syria, according to Globalsecurity. He died in 2002.

If you find evidence that the UK has intentionally supplied these chemicals to Syria, be sure to let us know. In the meantime, it is unclear where they came from, but it could be the EU, although from past experience, Russia and China could be in the frame (little or no evidence to support this ATM though).

 

[ellal]

A. I've got nothing to take back, as I was asking the question.

lol...

Pity you ignored everything else in those links, but then not unexpected from another member (or the same one?) of the b*llshit posters club...

 

[ellal]

If you find evidence that the UK has intentionally supplied these chemicals to Syria, be sure to let us know. In the meantime, it is unclear where they came from, but it could be the EU, although from past experience, Russia and China could be in the frame (little or no evidence to support this ATM though).

Ah, so now you insert the word 'intentionally'...

Moving the goalposts a tad, as no-one will admit 'intentionally' supplying anything...

And FYI at last glance the EU was part of the West...

So is that the basis of your argument...?

You are obviously a 'swallower', not a 'spitter'...

 

[wobs]

A. I've got nothing to take back, as I was asking the question.

lol...

Pity you ignored everything else in those links, but then not unexpected from another member (or the same one?) of the b*llshit posters club...

Your article provided the link, which I searched on, and I found the page I posted up.

If I'd have found something to support what you say, I'd have posted that up as well, but I didn't.

Like I said, I don't have some position to support. I look for evidence.

If you have any to support what you say, feel free to post it.

I should add that one of the comments in the article reflects what I found:
Abe, 7:30 AM on 17/7/2013

What a very strange "news" story......
.... In other words, contrary to the headline, Britain did not sell chemical weapons.

 

[wobs]

If you find evidence that the UK has intentionally supplied these chemicals to Syria, be sure to let us know. In the meantime, it is unclear where they came from, but it could be the EU, although from past experience, Russia and China could be in the frame (little or no evidence to support this ATM though).

Ah, so now you insert the word 'intentionally'...

Moving the goalposts a tad, as no-one will admit 'intentionally' supplying anything...

And FYI at last glance the EU was part of the West...

So is that the basis of your argument...?

You are obviously a 'swallower', not a 'spitter'...

No goalposts have been moved.

You have shown no evidence that the UK has supplied chemical weapons (or chemical to make them). Intentional or otherwise.

It could be that countries in the EU have, but that is not your claim.

I also note that you have started with the insults, when all I've done is show evidence. This doesn't do you any favours.

 

[ellal]

You have shown no evidence that the UK has supplied chemical weapons (or chemical to make them). Intentional or otherwise.

It could be that countries in the EU have, but that is not your claim.

So what do understand by the term 'the west'?

And exactly what did I claim then?...Come on - put up or shut up!

I also note that you have started with the insults, when all I've done is show evidence.

Sadly you have shown no 'evidence' whatsoever - and you insult the intelligence of those who have...

yet another twonk who knows f*ck all, and loves being a devils advocate instead of sticking with playing the five fingered widow...

 

[wobs]

Dupicate

 

[wobs]

Duplicate

 

[wobs]

So what do understand by the term 'the west'?

And exactly what did I claim then?...Come on - put up or shut up!

You mean the chemicals that apparently we've been supplying them?

Meaning the UK (what with you going on about the UK, and we live in the UK).

You have provided zero evidence for this, and only provided a link that had an incorrect headline to support this.

I also note that you have started with the insults, when all I've done is show evidence.

Sadly you have shown no 'evidence' whatsoever - and you insult the intelligence of those who have...

Incorrect, as well you know.

House of Commons documents are evidence. One that derives from a link you put up.

yet another twonk who knows f*ck all, and loves being a devils advocate instead of sticking with playing the five fingered widow...

I love it when people have to resort to insults. It speaks such volumes of them.

ETA:
This clearly needs repeating:
I'm for the truth to out, not to support a position.

 

[ellal]

Meaning the UK (what with you going on about the UK, and we live in the UK).

So the Twonk can't understand what 'we' actually means...

The Twonk can't understand that 'we' means the west...

Case closed on the evidence that the Twonk is...well a Twonk! ...

('soft in the head' would be proud of your repetitive quoting though... )

 

[wobs]

Meaning the UK (what with you going on about the UK, and we live in the UK).

So the Twonk can't understand what 'we' actually means...

The Twonk can't understand that 'we' means the west...

Case closed on the evidence that the Twonk is...well a Twonk! ...

('soft in the head' would be proud of your repetitive quoting though... )

More insults I see. I'm sure they help. Somehow.

You were clearly referring to the UK when you said "we". I really can't be bothered to go back through all your references to the UK, but you take the point. The irony of your goalpost moving is noted.

Even if you were referring to the West, then that's the US and the EU, and not many others. It is a vague term, and if you have a point to make behind your insults, you should be clear.

But lets look at the countries who allegedly supplied chemicals to Syria according to the link I put up earlier, as the UK doesn't look like it has. The European countries in the frame so far are:

Holland (assume Netherlands), Switzerland, France, Austria and Germany.

No evidence that Netherlands aren't going to bomb them. All we have is a story from March:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/03/dutch-are-worried-syrian-war-headed-their-way/63048/

Switzerland:
http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?Itemid=10725
Syria has tried to buy equipment from the Swiss (well they do make a lot of scientific equipment, so its not suprising), but no evidence that they are planning to bomb Syria. In fact I'd be amazed if they do.

France:
Looking likely that they might.
http://news.sky.com/story/1136841/syria-crisis-france-to-debate-military-action

Austria:
No. Unsuprisngly

Germany:
Effectively mumbling that "Syria are very naughty, and the US are very nice, but erm... we don't want to be seen to be supporting anything war like. We did the whole war thing, but we don't like to talk about it...."
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ate-position-on-attack-on-syria-a-919736.html
- Basically it a lot of fancy talk for non-committment.

BBC has a broader breakdown on countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23849587

So basically, only France has supplied chemicals to Syria and looks to be bombing Syria in the future. This is your "West".

It is unclear who the other allies that the US refer to when they discuss taking action.

 

[sooey]

You can argue against the morality of what's been done in the past as much as you like, and you would be right of course.
But who gives a fck about that now?

Probably the majority who are now against any further foreign military 'adventures'...

I hope that the relevant authorities are thinking that trying to get in first to secure it is a lot more important at the moment than arguing the toss about how it got there in the first place , that can be done later.

Ah that's right...

Did the fact that the West armed Saddam with chemical weapons change it's policy in the aftermath of his crimes?

Of course not...So you saying "that can be done later" is pointless as history tells us time and time again...

Who will we be thinking of attacking next that we have supplied for profit beforehand?...Take your pick!

I'm not interested in arguing about secondary issues at the moment, I'm just hoping that someone is thinking about the more important issue of where those chemical weapons are going to end up.
There's plenty of ill intentioned fuzzy wuzzies who'd like to get their hands on them I'm sure.

 

[ellal]

You were clearly referring to the UK when you said "we". I really can't be bothered to go back through all your references to the UK, but you take the point.

You've been caught out, and you are now just trying to b*llshit your way out of it..

Fat chance of that!....