Syria nearly launched chemical missiles at Israel after Israel bombed their nuclear powerplant

If this would have had happened, Israel would have probably nuked Syria. This is not a joke.

Israel have said many times if WMDs are used against it, they will retaliate with the only WMDs they've got... nukes.

WikiLeaks: Syria aimed chemical weapons at Israel

In 2008 meeting between Ehud Olmert, US senior officials, former prime minister said Syria placed long-range missiles with chemical warheads on high alert following attack on nuclear plant, WikiLeaks papers suggest

Syria placed long-range missiles equipped with chemical warheads on high alert after an attack on a Syrian nuclear plant in 2007, WikiLeaks documents obtained by Yedioth Ahronoth indicate.

"Bashar is no dummy," he added, since he decided not to respond to the September 2007 event. Olmert said that Syria's mobile missile system were on full alert, but that Assad decided not to order them to fire. "That took discipline," he noted.

He knew he would be nuked if he did. That's not discipline, that's sanity. But yeah it took discipline to just take it like that and not act on emotions.

Israel apparently asked the US to strike, but it refused due to pressure from then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

So he asked the US to do the dirty job uh? The only sane one in the Bush administration said no... I never thought I would ever say this... but THANK YOU RICE.

According to the reports, the main concern prior to the attack was whether Assad would retaliate and attack Israel. The reports suggest that US and Israeli intelligence elements were certain the Syrian president would open war with Israel.

Intelligence told Olmert that Syria would retaliate and he did it anyway... freaking nutjob.

Der Spiegel reported that following the attack, Olmert sent a calming message to the Syrians via the Turkish prime minister. The message stated that should Assad refrain from retaliating, Israel would "keep a low profile."

At least he did that...

reply to post by Vitchilo


Now where are my foes now trying to call me out re Syria's WMD..........

Syria DOES have WMD......so does Libya, Hizbollah AND Iran

WMD = chemical / biological / nuclear

Perhaps my foes have gone silent once and for all!

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Syria DOES have WMD......so does Libya, Hizbollah AND Iran

Libya doesn't have WMDs. Hizbullah, no proof of it, but yes, they could have WMDs in no time if Syria decided to transfer some of their own to them.

But I don't think Syria-Iran-Hizbullah are crazy enough to launch WMDs at Israel. They know they would be nuked.

Well, this almost solved the Syria problem. God help us all if Syria or Iran actually develops and fields nuclear weapons.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Libya is well known to have chemical weapons.......

Hizbollah also has afew among their cache.....perhaps you need to go to the other thread

Syria also has both chemical and biological......and Iran has the largest cache of them all.

A chemical weapon isn't necessarily a WMD.
Napalm is a chemical weapon, and we used that all the time in Vietnam.
The only country that has used a WMD on another country is the US. And we used two WMDs on japan.

This article just goes to show that Israel is crazy, and Syria is the sane one in the relationship.
I knew that before, this article confirms my belief.

The whole branding of "WMD's" was never anything more than a puffed up media scare piece on behalf of our governments, designed to play on peoples emotions and fears.
Chemical / biological weapons DO NOT cause mass destruction. They may kill a bunch of people, but so do the ordinary bombs, missiles and other depleted uranium tipped munitions... that go on killing long after the fighting has stopped.
Adding in nuclear weapons, which do of course cause a lot of destruction, was a sly move. By claiming country-x has "WMD's", they don't have to be specific any more about the detail, as people will, having been conditioned, automatically assume the worst case and think country-x has nukes.

A 50cent bullet will kill you just as dead as a microscopic organism, chemical compound or 500lb bomb....dead is dead, but the whole "WMD" thing just adds a little more fear.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Oh really, dude??? Libya doesn't have chemical weapons??? (Note- sarcasm)

SOURCE: www.cbsnews.com...

Care to back up your assertion they don't??? Come at me, bro.

reply to post by crazyray


Who cares if they do? We have a billion times as many chemical weapons as they do. Why should we be allowed to have them and not they?

reply to post by Ghost375

This article just goes to show that Israel is crazy, and Syria is the sane one in the relationship.

And since this is coming from an Israeli newspaper, the shills cannot say it's anti-semitism...

A chemical weapon isn't necessarily a WMD.

You know what they mean by ``chemical weapons``... they mean chemical warheads... like sarin gas.

The only country that has used a WMD on another country is the US. And we used two WMDs on japan.

Wrong. Iraq did use chemical weapons against Iran... but they were supplied by the US.

Libya is well known to have chemical weapons.......

Yeah but with no means to use them... otherwise they would have used them against the rebels or NATO by now.

Syria also has both chemical and biological......and Iran has the largest cache of them all.

Yeah but Iran is kind of a ``paper tiger`` in terms of missiles against Israel. Too far. Syria has more ``punch``...

Well, this almost solved the Syria problem. God help us all if Syria or Iran actually develops and fields nuclear weapons.

Yeah because all we need is more death in the middle-east...

Chemical / biological weapons DO NOT cause mass destruction.

Obviously you don't know what VX is.

And MSM is now reporting that Iran is helping to arm the Syrian Govt and help them against their internal protestors.

Of course they are, I would have been amazed if they weren't.

Syria is the single biggest backer of Iran in the region. If the Syrian Government were to collapse, Iran would lose their biggest ally.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Germany also used WMD (as did the British) in World War I, with the use of mustard gas.

There is also some evidence of gas being used by ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese.

You are correct, United States is hardly the only nation to have used a WMD in warfare.

However, to date, they are the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon in anger.

There are many other WMDs other than a nuclear bomb.

So what? Syria has a right to protect itself. If I punch any of you in the face, are you people going to just sit there and take it? Don't answer that. i already know cuz politicians are raping us, and we're just taking it. Anyway, syria has a right to protect itself, and if israel attacks it, syria has a right to respond with equal or greater force, so just stfu about all this stupid "omgwtf syria has wmd!" you zionazi shills.why aren't you talking about how israel will nuke syria because israel started the entire thing? oh right, you're a bunch of zionazis. well good luck cuz you're going to need it when usa goes deep into tyranny and tsa is feeling up all your kids and police checkpoints are on your neighborhood corner. i bet you'll like that cuz sheeple are obedient and do whatever they're told.

By Treaty, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon, have a mutual defense agreement which in effect says that they will support each other if attacked by anybody.
I would expect that any front that opened, would be followed with other sides chiming in with whatever theyve got stashed.
How co ordinated that would be remains a mystery.
Assad is not stupid, and they were attempting to produce nuclear weapons after all, that in itself is provocation for air strikes dont you think?
Even big tough talking Iran did nothing when the Isreaalis took the reactor out....why?
Because the thing was a direct provocation and obvious target.Considering the Isrealis took out Saddams reactor too, it was no real surprise.
The trick was to get it fuelled an run up before it was discovered, then knocking it out may have been too risky even for Isreal.....World opinion, and the reaction of neighbours at that point may be unacceptable....
Chemical warheads used against civillian targets or even military ones, will be met with nuclear weapons in any future engagement that Isreal or NATO gets into.
As this is pretty much understood by all parties involved, i dont think Assad had the choice to pull the trigger.
This just leaves the Syrians and the rest of the arab block grinding ts teeth and waiting for the fatal mistake tat will bring Isreal down, whatever that may be......i am asured that there are many arabs who will be only too happy to take advantage of that event.
.

Syrian WMD – center for strategic and international studies:
csis.org...

Syria used Chemical weapons against its own citizens and killed tens of thousands.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Turkey is accused of using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
www.spiegel.de...

I was just wondering if ANYONE can explain to me that logic that Nuclear weapons are acceptable to use in warfare but chemical weapons are not? Won't chemical weapons just kill the people and leave the city in tact? Then at least the museums, and historical landmarks stay in tact to be repopulated later?

Meanwhile nuclear weapons just vaporize EVERYTHING and leave the area unable to be rebuilt or repopulated for EONS?

reply to post by bluemirage5


Libya has chemical weapon stockpiles which were scheduled to be destroyed but obviously you can notice the delay. However they do not have the capability of firing or launching these weapons.
Israel once previously held undeclared WMD's and even jailed a Israeli nuclear engineer for exposing this. I don't see the point you are trying to make. Do the chosen people have a right to WMD's while the others don't? Of course I condemn any nation of possesing such weapons.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant



WHO are the chosen people???????? Is this a Christian expression or something?

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

 

WHO are the chosen people???????? Is this a Christian expression or something?

You damn well know I'm using sarcasm and that I mean Israeli's. Don't try to divert the subject.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

 

WHO are the chosen people???????? Is this a Christian expression or something?

You damn well know I'm using sarcasm and that I mean Israeli's. Don't try to divert the subject.

The only people I hear use the term “ Chosen people” as a term to describe Superior Beings , are Jew haters.
You would rarely hear a Jewish person use that term, and if they do it would be in the context of “ chosen to suffer” as it has been throughout their history.