Syria tested chemical arms on civilians in Darfur region

Completely unsurprising, and yet astounding at the same time. If Syria indeed is collaborating with a fellow Arab Muslim state in genocide directed at black Africans, just as Egypt eagerly participated in murdering Ibo Christian villagers during the Biafran War that should be remembered, if furthermore Syria has been found using chemical weapons, just as Egypt used such forbidden weapons when it supported one side in the Yemen against the so-called "royalists" supported by the Saudis, this could have a great deal of meaning in putting an end to the Syrian regime, already suspected of hiding Iraqi weapons, and known to support, along with Iran, the introduction of Syrian and Iranian and other Muslim terrorists into Iraq. This may mean as well that Syria will be forced, at long last, out of Lebanon, the Taif Agreement torn up, and the Christians of the Middle East, above all the Maronites, will have a defensible refuge once again -- no thanks to France, all thanks to the United States, and to the efforts of those who have raised the consciousness in Washington about dhimmitude and the fate of Christians under Islam. No statues will be erected in Damur to Bat Ye'or when that happens, but they should be.

"weapons tests were undertaken"
Tests for what? Who?
God, I can hear the sirens already.

Bang-on-target, as usual, Hugh.

So if the US moves to 'disarm' (and democratize) Syria, and given that enough evidence of WMD has been found in quasi-rogue states like Iran and pakistan, let's see who all can be our allies in this noble venture of securing world peace....

1. The anglo-saxon world (UK, Aus.) maybe reluctant this time but can be persuaded using pure logic alone, methinks.

2. China and Russia can be brought on board by assuredly dividing influence in post-regime change ME amiably between the US, Russia and China.

3. Eastern and central europe will continue to be pro-US, hopefully.

4. The rest don't matter.

Now, if only Washington, of whatever political dispensation, could gather the 'resolve' to do what is right (and not what is 'left'), the War on terror will really get moving.

And concerning 'what is left,' a question for KeithJoy:

In an older thread on DW, you mentioned Reagan, arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80's. However I find that President Carter began that program in 1979, and I would guess Reagan found it useful to extend it.

In light of this, would you say it was a big mistake for Carter to have begun the arming of the Afghanis, which led to Bin Laden?

Back on topic: I doubt we will ever easily find out if Syria developed these weapons themselves, or got them from Saddam's WMD supplies as they were moved out of the country. I guess the question is going to be: Which country must we deal with next, Syria or Iran?

"Syria tested chemical weapons on civilians in Sudan's troubled western Darfur region in June and killed dozens of people."

I find this report very hard to believe.

Why? Why would Syria, knowing that the US military is right next door, perpetrate their experiment on an African nation?

What would be the purpose, if true, of Assad's intention?

Is he suicidal? I doubt it.

I general principle that I find reliable in study of the Holocaust is that things are usually a lot worse than they appear, even when they appear horrific.

The principle fits the Jihad, and undercover, Jihadist states like Syria, perfectly: imagine the worst case, and reality will normally exceed what comes to mind.

JTF says:

"...Jihadist states like Syria..."

Syria is run by a dictatorship. He may use suicidal jihadists to further his regime. But, only to an extent.

This man is not a fool.

The insinuation that he has ventured into "explorative CHEM warfare" certainly doesn't fit this man's agenda. Whatever that agenda may be.

This report is false.

"This report is false".
Posted by: Moe's Foe

Next time do some "research"

Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 25/01/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

"David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria".

"In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam".

"But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme."

"Dr Kay's comments will intensify pressure on President Bashar Assad to clarify the extent of his co-operation with Saddam's regime and details of Syria's WMD programme. Mr Assad has said that Syria was entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own biological and chemical weapons arsenal".

"Syria was one of Iraq's main allies in the run-up to the war and hundreds of Iraqi officials - including members of Saddam's family - were given refuge in Damascus after the collapse of the Iraqi dictator's regime. Many of the foreign fighters responsible for conducting terrorist attacks against the coalition are believed to have entered Iraq through Syria".

Actually, Moe Foe, it makes perfect sense. Consider:
1. Syria has the expertise to develop these weapons, as indeed any country does which can duplicate German technology from WWII. (Only Binary shells would be hard to recreate)

2. Syria has a delivery system, using SCUD class missiles and long-range artillery.

3. Syria KNOWS Arab countries can test chemical weapons with impunity, since Egypt did so in Yemen.

4. Why do it? Chemical (and perhaps, biological) weapons are a cheap way to produce mass casualties. Syria cannot match Israel or the US conventionally, but she can make either country pay a high price for any attempt at regieme change.

5. They would also make good offensive weapons, to saturate airfields, ports, and other large, vulnerable targets. Remember, all Syria, or any other enemy country, has to do is last long enough for the US to get tired and call off the war. Given the half hearted efforts the US is putting forth in Iraq, (and this is AFTER getting hit by the equivalent of a tactical nuke in the twin towers), I do not believe Syria thinks the US is much more than a paper tiger.

(By the way, I am not some liberal looney tune leftist. I fully support President Bush, but the fact is, by shocking rather than by utterly destroying the Iraqi Army; by allowing terrorists to regroup in Fallujah and elsewhere; by tolerating Irans nuclear program and interference in Iraq; and by handicapping US troops with obsolete rules of engagement President Bush has frittered away a lot of the deterrent effect of getting rid of Saddam.

Anyway, my two cents worth:)

Continued...

Iraqi WMD 'possibly in Syria'
31/03/2003 16:33 - (SA)
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1340941,00.html

"Jerusalem - Iraqi chemical and biological weapons may be hidden in Syria, a senior Israeli intelligence officer told a parliamentary committee here on Monday, Israeli public radio said".

"It is possible Iraq transferred missiles and weapons of mass destruction into Syria," General Yossi Kupperwasser told the committee".

"He said the transfer could be one explanation as to why US-led forces scouring suspect sites in western Iraq had found nothing so far, the radio said".

"Last Friday US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned the two Arab states to steer clear of the Iraq war, saying that military supplies crossing from Syria were a "hostile act".

"In December, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he had information that Iraq had transferred weapons of mass destruction to Syria."

"There is information we are verifying. But we are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria," he said".

"Saddam Hussein wanted to hide his weapons, and I think that the Americans know that," said the Israeli leader, who strongly backs the US-led campaign to topple the Iraqi leader's regime over its alleged weapons of mass destruction programmes".

BTW: What was that the Left stated,Iraq had no WMD...

Iraqi Chemical Weapons
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw.htm

"In a briefing for journalists reported on October 29, 2003, the director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency said satellite images showed a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion in March 2003. Retired Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper Jr. said he believed "unquestionably" that "illicit weapons material" was transported into "Syria" and perhaps other countries. He said "I think people below the Saddam- Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse. ... I think probably in the few months running up to the onset of the conflict, I think there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private hands, to bury it, and to move it outside the country's borders."

Would love to see bashir tumble. Has he the cunning and brutality of his dad ?
Then what of alawite rule, would not think that they would risk losing control, to the 'real' moslems. They will support him.
Thinking about it, is it an alawite alliance with iran to conrol syria/lebanon ?

Have always considered Khartoum Government a bunch
of Criminals.This shocking report is horrific and hope will be shown on world media to expose what has really been happening in Sudan.

Son of Infidel and BattleofthePyramids:

Both, thanks for the links and the opinions.

While I will agree that Syria has the capability to produce such weapons, I still see no reason why Assad would bother to use them.

His recent "assumption" to power, his relative youth and the hard fact that the US military is right on his doorstep makes me unwilling to that Syria actually tested their "chems" in Sudan.

I may be totally wrong, but the opinion I have is based on a common-sense gut feeling.

Son of Infidel: Conjectures based upon lifetime experiences needn't a weblink to back them up. I am quite aware, possibly as yourself, of what is/has been going on in Syria.

However, I should have qualified in my initial post that I believe this report to be false based upon my opinions.

Moe's Foe,

The information I posted is more than just conjecture.Why you are convinced that Assad would not test, use or pass along to another Islamic country chemical weapons is hard to understand. He is more ruthless and dangerous than his father was and certainly does not have his intelligence.

In the real world, most evil men aren't geniuses. Instead, the real danger, more often than not, comes from evil morons.

"Bashar Assad, our intelligence people repeatedly assured us, was from the shallow end of the gene pool; he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer".

http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200311120817.asp

Gary desparately tries thus:In an older thread on DW, you mentioned Reagan, arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80's. However I find that President Carter began that program in 1979, and I would guess Reagan found it useful to extend it.

In light of this, would you say it was a big mistake for Carter to have begun the arming of the Afghanis, which led to Bin Laden?

If that is true, I absolutely think that Carter made a big mistake, yes. Since I am not a partisan idealogue, I will always criticize any liberal or democrat that does something wrong. Carter was too soft-hearted, and a bible-thumper.

Now can you admit that Reagan made a mistake 8 times as worse? That's "just" the eight years he armed the future-Taliban (eight years for him vs. 1 for Carter.)

What about Reagan/Bush selling arms to Iran and Syria for money to fund the massacre of 41,000 peasant farmers and union organizers in Central America?

What about Reagan/Bush pouring money into Saddam's army?

What about Bush Jr. sending the Taliban 43 Million dollars in April 2001?

Saddam, Noriega, Bin Laden, Iran, Saudi, Syria... goddam! Do we have ANY enemies that HAVEN'T been on the Reagan/Bush payroll? This happens so much that the CIA has a word for it: "blowback".

By the way, as for Syria there are two possible solutions:

One: We need to send them the way of the Taliban,

or Two: Tell Israel that we will protect them from the United Nothing, and let them take out Syria.

Since Syria has been occupying Lebanon for 25 years, as goes Syria so goes Lebanon.

I have read speculation of this at some left-wing sites. That Israel will take Syria, America will take Iran, and then their will be a swath of non-Muslim "muslim nations" from the Med. to Pakistan...That would be great. And if India takes Pakistan... well then Indonesia, the Saudi peninsula, and north Africa are pretty much all that's left of Islam. (Minor players like Bangladesh and Jordan don't count.)

Maybe some good will come out of this after all.

And two Nuclear reactors to N. Korea is not a payoff?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5368

And that is for starters. Yes, every administration has made bad mistakes, and we're paying for them:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Eh. Whatever.

I have read of reports that Syria is stashing its WMD in Sudan to avoid the prying eyes of arms inspectors - some of these arms may have originated from Iraq.
That Khartoum would allow the testing of such arms on Darfuri civilians is hardly suprising, what is disturbing is the distinct possibility that these arms will be used on a larger scale. A new chapter in the Darfur conflict may be unfolding.

kj:

Point taken. This isn't a partisan site either. Ilike to think the majority here're centrists rather than right or left wingers. Well, certainly, I am one. And to that extent defending the GOPs every action or their presidents isn't on my agenda.

P.S: Also remember horror of the SS oath "I would serve the cause even if it were wrong."

Point being, if something is wrong, you attack it, partisan politics comes much later.

But again, if there were no centre, I'd be undoubtedly on the right. The left is sure to throw a spanner in the works in any strong willed tough armed action the US may wanna take.

BTW, since you visit many leftist websites, wonder how the lefties take to your rather hawkish views (such as 'take out syria' etc).

"BTW, since you visit many leftist websites, wonder how the lefties take to your rather hawkish views (such as 'take out syria' etc)".

I question whether Kj puts forth, the same as you stated "hawish views" on the Leftist websites.

Kj might be singing a different tune once he is around his brethern.

Son of Infidel said,

"...most evil men aren't geniuses. Instead, the real danger, more often than not, comes from evil morons."

LOL! Point taken. I suppose my belief is that the urge of self-preservation dominates all other urges.

In this case, I may be wrong.

I guess I should thank my parents for having this naive point of view.