Deputy FM warns: Inaction on Syrian chemical arms sends message to Iran

[azurnoir]

If the Iranians see that the international community respond tepidly to Syria's use of chemical weapons they will continue to push forward their nuclear program, Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin said Friday on Army Radio.

Elkin's words followed an announcement by the United States on Thursday that the Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime had used chemical weapons, something U.S. President Barack Obama had defined as a "red line" that must not be crossed. Elkin called on world powers to "take control of chemical weapon stocks" in Syria and stated that there were fears that it could fall into the hands of other parties.

"There is a question here, when a red line is set can we stick by it?" said Elkin on Army Radio. "If the Iranians will see that the red lines laid by the international community are flexible, then they will continue to progress [with their nuclear program]?" He added that there was no escaping the necessity of the international community taking Assad's chemical weapons stocks.

Elkin also expressed the fear that some of the Assad regimes chemical weapons would fall into the hands of the Syrian rebels or other hostile entities. Western intelligence agencies believe that all of Syria's chemical weapons are still in the hands of the Assad regime. But according to Elkin, "the ease with which Assad used chemical weapons shows that apparently it could easily pass it the hands of the other side."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/deputy-fm-warns-inaction-on-syrian-chemical-arms-sends-message-to-iran-1.517782

[oberliner]

1. Very good point

Syria's use of chemical weapons ought to be examined carefully.

[azurnoir]

2. and then what? what would you like to see happen

if indeed chemical weapons are being used?

[oberliner]

11. Trial at The Hague?

Whatever international law dictates.

[azurnoir]

16. and just how would Assad be brought before the UN?

BY what method? or would this be a trial in absentia ?

[shaayecanaan]

18. really?

Using weapons of mass destruction against civilians is a war crime? I'm not sure Uncle Sugar would approve of that. Think of the implications.

[Alamuti Lotus]

4. you left out the words "alleged", "illogical", and "unlikely"

I do admire how this PR machine operates: make ludicrous statements, pretend that they're true, and just expect that nobody is going to look closely at the history of such inanity and see through it. Did Curveball get a new passport while I wasn't looking?! It doesn't surprise me that you accept such nonsense uncritically. But if you and Israel want war so badly, grab a gun and go to the front. Expecting--nay, almost bullying--others to do it is just living up to the equally inane and ludicrous stereotypes of your enemies.

[bravenak]

6. I wish they would.

Grab a gun, and go to the front lines first. I don't wanna go. Nobody I know wants to go to fuggin Syria and shoot strangers. But they're all poor so they'll probably end up going anyway if something happens.

[pelsar]

9. guess history isnt your strong point

dont know much about 1982 hama?

check out what daddy did....using Cyanide gas
______________

so much for unlikely, illogical......

[Alamuti Lotus]

13. once again, the word "alleged" is omitted

I'm not sure why, it's a very important phrase to employ when making disputed and discredited claims..

I am well aware of the events that took place in the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist stronghold. Certainly not pretty, but not without context and not a situation where you can just make up facts to suit your agenda. The Brotherhood and its propaganda apparatus--just like now--, and of course the usual unnamed military intelligence sources--again, just like now!--, may have made such claims, but nobody on the ground (Fisk was there as the fighting was going on) could confirm such in the midst of the other heavy fighting going on with conventional arms. I suspect that many of the same sources said in 2003 that Saddam had nuclear weapons pointed at your child's favourite puppy, and will use them unless he is overthrown yesterday. It's the same script churned out by the same PR departments.

Unlikely/illogical--the incident under present suspicion is said to have been a "small scale" attack on a densely populated area and killed 2-3 people. The use of any poison in a densely occupied area, and only 2-3 people are in the propaganda released by the Nusrah/Ikhwani agents on Youtube? Which, by the way, is the basis for the present claims--blurry images provided by salafi militant formations who will stop at absolutely nothing to trigger foreign invasion of the country. I've seen pictures of Bigfoot that were more definitive than some of their rubbish. Given the other present activities, it is ludicrous to assert that Syrian Army Generals rather capriciously decided that there were 2-3 super-mega-deluxe fighters that could not be killed with the same bombs and bullets that seem to be doing the trick with everybody else.

Need I mention the astounding litany of bogus claims used to justify the last several wars that certain sources seemed to have so badly wanted? And I realize that reason and logic are a major cog in the present war effort, but that's just my style and something more than a fickle fascination.

[pelsar]

14. i didnt use alleged....because it wasnt what i was commenting on

i was commenting on your unlikly and illogical...

why don't you explain why the syrian regime that has massacred thousands already would not use gas as being "illogical or 'unlikely"



btw your actually using a youtube video as the proof?
use of any poison in a densely occupied area, and only 2-3 people are in the propaganda released by the Nusrah/Ikhwani agents on Youtube? Which, by the way, is the basis for the present claims--

seriously? Youtube?...please confirm, this is too unbelievable to actually believe.
______________

and i dont put any credit in what fisk says, so using him doesn't really mean anything to me.
but i do give a little more credit in Amnesty international

In 1982, Amnesty International charged that the Syrian government had used cyanide gas against a Moslem Brotherhood uprising in Hama.
so its their claim that i'm basing my claim on....not my facts

[oberliner]

10. UN investigates Syria chemical weapons use

A UN spokesman has said that investigators from the world body have started collecting evidence outside Syria on the suspected use of chemical weapons.

Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, on Friday wrote to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with a new request for access to investigators inside the war-torn country.

Last month, both the Syrian government and rebels accused each other of using chemical weapons in an attack on the village of Khan al-Assal outside the northern city of Aleppo.

Following the incident, the Syria government called for the UN to investigate alleged chemical weapons use by rebels.

Syria, however, has still not allowed a team of experts into the country because it wants the investigation limited to the single Khan al-Assal incident, while the UN chief is urging the Syrian government to accept an expanded UN probe.

Weapons inspectors will determine whether banned chemical agents were used in Syrian conflict only if they are able to access sites and take soil, blood, urine or tissue samples and examine them in certified laboratories, according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which works with the UN on inspections.

Assertions of chemical-weapons use in Syria by Western and Israeli officials citing photos, sporadic shelling and traces of toxins do not meet the standard of proof needed for a UN team of experts waiting to gather their own field evidence, the organisation said.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/04/201342712035191678.html

[azurnoir]

15. "Evidence" of Syria chemical weapons use not up to U.N. standard

Assertions of chemical weapon use in Syria by Western and Israeli officials citing photos, sporadic shelling and traces of toxins do not meet the standard of proof needed for a U.N. team of experts waiting to gather their own field evidence.

Weapons inspectors will only determine whether banned chemical agents were used in the two-year-old conflict if they are able to access sites and take soil, blood, urine or tissue samples and examine them in certified laboratories, according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which works with the United Nations on inspections.

That type of evidence, needed to show definitively if banned chemicals were found, has not been presented by governments and intelligence agencies accusing Syria of using chemical weapons against insurgents.

"This is the only basis on which the OPCW would provide a formal assessment of whether chemical weapons have been used," said Michael Luhan, a spokesman for the Hague-based OPCW.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/us-syria-crisis-chemical-weapons-idUSBRE93P0UG20130426

[delrem]

3. I call bullshit on the entire report.

[bravenak]

5. Me too.

We be havin some biased reports up in here!
It's like we're conservatives.

[delrem]

7. It's like we don't have a brain cell!

[bravenak]

8. I know,right?

Get a brain Morans!

[oberliner]

12. Of course

What about the UN investigation?

Would you call BS on their findings too?

(That is, if Syria allows them to investigate)

[delrem]

17. I bet you still believe in Iraq WMD,

still disbelieve all the UN findings that there were none.
I bet you believe the Saudi armed and funded mercinary "jihadists" fresh from looting Libya and now laying devastation on Syria are "freedom fighters", fighting for liberty, democracy, and the american way.

I bet you believe whatever is convenient for you to believe, and being a peaceloving type you believe the fishy reports from Israeli "intelligence" (passed on to the USA) that al-Assad used a miniscule amount of Sarin against the "rebel fighters". Why wouldn't you believe the absurd story, it'd mean al-Assad crossed Obama's "red line" and Israel could cheer on the Syrian bombing campaign led by the USA.