It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Syria says it will use chemical weapons if attacked

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) – The Syrian regime acknowledged for the first time Monday that it possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said it will only use them in case of a foreign attack and never internally against its own citizens.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said the stockpiles are secure, in an apparent response to widespread international concerns that they could fall into the hands of the disparate bands of rebel forces fighting the government.

"No chemical or biological weapons will ever be used, and I repeat, will never be used, during the crisis in Syria no matter what the developments inside Syria," he said in conference broadcast on state TV. "All of these types of weapons are in storage and under security and the direct supervision of the Syrian armed forces and will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression."


Syria says it will use chemical weapons if attacked

Turkey sends missile batteries to Syria

US refines game pland to overthrow Assad

This new article along with all of the other recent articles regarding Syria and Iran are truly bothersome. This statement will make TPTB all the more anxious to attack Syria. Although it should make them more hesitant they will just use this as a "reason" because they will explain it as a threat from Assad. The next month(s) should be very interesting to say the least.
edit on 7/23/2012 by SUICIDEHK45 because: Add




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
They will never use these weapons, to do so would make them hunted men wherever they tried to go. Even Russia would refuse to take them in. A more realistic concern is that these weapons could fall into the hands of jihadists fighting alongside the syrian rebels.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
What exactly would happen if canada invaded the usa? Maybe they and mexico and england want us to go pack to pre 1796 borders. You cant tell me that nukes wouldnt fly. A fusion bomb air bursted over toronto would make hiroshima and nagasaki look like they were hit with a plane.

Of course a country is going to use wmds when theyre attacked. A cornered feral cat will try to kill a human.... Hell maybe iran would send nukes to syria. Hmm. What ever happeneed to the russian suitcase nukes?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
All the more reason to attack them.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The following from state run Syrian News Agency.

Syrian Foreign Ministry: Chemical and Biological Weapons Are Secured and Would Only Be Used in the Case of External Aggression

Jul 23, 2012


DAMASCUS, (SANA)- Foreign and Expatriates Ministry on Monday stressed Syria's stance that any chemical or biological weapons will never ever be used during the crisis in Syria notwithstanding the developments inside the country. A statement by the Ministry, read by spokesman Dr. Jihad Makdissi in a press conference, said that such weapons stocks are secured and directly monitored by the Syrian Armed Forces and would only be used in the case of external aggression on the country.


www.sana.sy...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
All the more reason to attack them.


Are you being serious? Just curious I guess. What are your reasons if you are being serious that you would like them to be attacked? I understand that they have killed almost 20000 (allegedly), but why should other countries get involved? As long as they keep it in their borders, I think it is their deal.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I hope Syria unleashes those weapons on their attackers. It will show the West that not everyone is going to bend over and bow down to them. It will show the West that they won't take another nation without a fight to make Iraq look like a walk in a park.

If Syria is attacked they are fully entitled to use everything in their arsenal to make the aggressors pay. If Israel and Turkey attack them then Syria should pump everything it has into the attackers' homelands and make them regret every thinking of attacking Syria.

Iran should do the same. Fit their warheads with EMPs and thermobaric war heads to neutralize their enemies defences first and then unleash chemical and more thermobaric war heads before sending in their air force to make some precision strikes.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


If they are prepared to use such inhumane weapons as Chemical weapons then they are not fit to be in charge of a country. The geneva convention outlawed them a long time ago in international law. If we are to enforce international law then they must be eliminated.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
i think if you push a country, Just like a person into a corner they will be forced to launch what ever they have to pretty much prevail. Just like a Rat, If you take a Rat, put it inside a metal container and heat up the container, the Rat if cornerd and hot enough it will chew through the metal to get out. So same logic, the country would do anything to get out of the corner, it's like if you were Assad, or Libya and having the USA after you..you kinda know your're out matched and pretty much fked lol.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


If they are prepared to use such inhumane weapons as Chemical weapons then they are not fit to be in charge of a country. The geneva convention outlawed them a long time ago in international law. If we are to enforce international law then they must be eliminated.


The Geneva convention also outlawed nuclear weapons and napalm but the US still has both and has actually used both on CIVILIAN populaces no less.

You guys can't decide who gets to have what when you are the only nation to have used them.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Trajan
 


Napalm is no longer used by the US and the last time I looked holding stocks of nuclear weapons wasn't a violation of the geneva convention. Nobody is saying that the US or the West is squeeky clean, but I'd much rather have the US in charge of those weapons than somebody like Assad or Ahdinejamad(spelling).



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by live2beknown
 
Rats have an uncanny ability for survival

Launching chemical weapons at anyone is not going to be in the interests of their continued existence. I seriously doubt the soldiers loyal to assad would dare use these weapons, knowing what the inevitable consequences would be. The whole notion is fabricated nonsense and propaganda.

Jihadists would not think twice about using these weapons, simply because their own survival is unimportant to them.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Trajan
 


Napalm is no longer used by the US and the last time I looked holding stocks of nuclear weapons wasn't a violation of the geneva convention. Nobody is saying that the US or the West is squeeky clean, but I'd much rather have the US in charge of those weapons than somebody like Assad or Ahdinejamad(spelling).


It was still used even though it was outlawed. Doesn't change the hypocrisy.

No, not holding them but using them is, you used depleted uranium in tank rounds during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
They aren't the big 'boom thump whoosh' nuclear weapons we are normally given an example of but the weapons are still radioactive and composed of nuclear material.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trajan
I hope Syria unleashes those weapons on their attackers. It will show the West that not everyone is going to bend over and bow down to them. It will show the West that they won't take another nation without a fight to make Iraq look like a walk in a park.


Unfortunetly if they do, then Israel will launch nuclear missiles straight back over the border and then we have a no win situation and just heaps of dead people.


If Syria is attacked they are fully entitled to use everything in their arsenal to make the aggressors pay. If Israel and Turkey attack them then Syria should pump everything it has into the attackers' homelands and make them regret every thinking of attacking Syria.


Well, they didn't build them for nothing, same as israel if they are attacked. The question is, who is going to make the first move and be labelled the aggressor? By the sounds of it, not Syria.


Iran should do the same. Fit their warheads with EMPs and thermobaric war heads to neutralize their enemies defences first and then unleash chemical and more thermobaric war heads before sending in their air force to make some precision strikes.


This is the thing about Iran. The west are so worried about their nuclear achievements yet not one mention about biological or chemical warfare. Iran would most likely have a very big arsenal also and again if they are attacked, they have every right to protect their country...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
yes, but what if the rebels get a hold of one persay, and launch one..than blames Assad's forces for doing it..kind of a false flag, and than everyone would launch a war on Syria, and TPTB would be happy that they won..It's just speculation, but is possible..As we know after 911 everything is possibe for TPTB...Kinda scary, as how far will TPTB go to achieve their goal..



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   


such weapons stocks are secured and directly monitored by the Syrian Armed Forces and would only be used in the case of external aggression on the country.


"External agression", can have any meaning: Turkish tanks in the border, Lebanese reinforcements and "rebels" taking over control posts, can be interpreted as "External agression"... My only concern is about the Syrian civilians, thank god they're running away in the thousands.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Assad has a death sentence on his head if Syria loses. Do you think he is worried about losing a million or 5 million Syrians as long as he makes the attackers suffer heavily? He is dead anyway and so are hundreds of thousands of Syrians who will stand with him or be caught in the cross fire so why wouldn't he make sure to kill as many enemies as possible?

Yeah, I know. I was just saying Syria has every right to use those stock piles because people were saying he shouldn't be allowed to us them.

Iran has a pretty large chemical storage but they are nowhere near Syria's amount (who have produced them near constantly since the 60's) but that said I am sure they are plans for Syrian soldiers to join the Iranian military in the case of Syria's collapse. I wouldn't be surprised if they share emergency launch codes or the Syrian's will give Iran the launch codes if they are attacked.
Iran is a major regional power and if they get a hand on Syria's stockpiles then they could leap frog into regional dominance (Israel and Pakistan exempt)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


They said they would use chemical/biological weapons IF they were attacked. Which is a sublime way to say that they would only use them in case of international intervention, and possibly, if that intervention would be accomplished by the wrong countries. I have doubts that if Russia stepped in for peace ("peace" AKA protecting their interests along with Assad's party), they would be used against them.

In my opinion, that's as obvious as the US or Russia or Israel saying that they will use nukes if the need arises.

As an example, both URSS and US spent the whole Cold War saying they would use nuclear weapons. The whole "duck and cover" exercises thing was a result of that. The will to actually use nuclear weapons.

My main concern is not about their use, as in, wether Syria will use them or not. I'm more concerned where those chemical weapons might head to after the Syria regime falls. There is so much you can do within your country and expect things to be solved after a while.

I think Syria is well past that point. Even if peace gets back to Syria, Assad will have a very hard time justifying his presence as a leader. After all, even if(assuming he's right) it's not "his fault" that this uprising happened, it was during his powergrip that the whole thing happened, and he did fail to prevent it from escalating into the conflict we see today.

Looking at things how they stand today, Syria is bound to hit the floor hard, and when things get really desperate, I don't think Assad will have enough control to actually order the deployment and use of chemical weapons.

But other parties involved in the conflict might have a big interest in getting hold of those weapons, and if that happens, the hope will be with the soldiers that guard those weapons (to stand and defend them, even if Assad falls), or with the countries that decide to act in order to secure them. Whoever that is, US/Russia/NATO...

People seek comfort in past episodes like Iraq, where all the smoke and fear from chemical weapons was present, just to turn out to be insignificant and plain wrong.

But just because that was the case with Iraq, doesn't mean it will be the case with Syria. Mostly because Syria is making a much stronger stand than whatever Saddam Hussein ever did, and because the actual opposition is also much stronger and much more "inspired" than before.

This threat is actually very real, and their stocks might be much more powerful than what you would expect for a country like Iraq. Not in number, but at least in efficiency.

Personally, I think Assad won't deploy those weapons. At least, for the sake of that people, I hope he doesn't. Deploying such means of destruction is plain suicide. It could even work right for him, like killing massive numbers of rebels, and not suffering from any fallout. But that's just one of the scenarios in the bag, and along with that one, there are scenarios like the wind changing and spreading the poison everywhere, or at least, to sensitive areas, inside Syria or to neighbor countries.

And if that happens, you can imagine the consequences. Imagine a country like Iran or Israel being affected by these chemical weapons... The chase to find out (if the launcher was unknown) would be set, and the consequences of that could be catastrophic. Iran could say it was western powers that infiltrated Syria and used them on purpose, or Israel could state that Iran-backed terrorist organizations got hold of the weapons and deployed them to attack Israel territory.

I don't think people should panic over this, but I also think everyone should be at least concerned and aware about this issue.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trajan

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Trajan
 


No, not holding them but using them is, you used depleted uranium in tank rounds during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
They aren't the big 'boom thump whoosh' nuclear weapons we are normally given an example of but the weapons are still radioactive and composed of nuclear material.


thats silly to put them in the same categrory as "boom thump whoosh nuclear weapons"...

plus you know we use depleted uranium rounds in the A-10s 30mm cannon too, right?


Civilian uses include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment and containers used to transport radioactive materials. Military uses include defensive armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles.


no where near the same thing, bad comparison...
edit on 23-7-2012 by Dizrael because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
If they follow through with this threat, we will have absolute confirmation that Hussein and his Iraqi regime shipped their WMD's to Syria. As has long been suspected


A Pentagon document reveals that an Iraqi dissident reported that 50 trucks crossed the border on March 10, 2003, and that his sources in Syria confirmed they carried WMD. These trucks have been talked about frequently and remain a mystery.

During the question-and-answer period and during a follow-up interview, Duelfer made several interesting statements to me that reinforced my confidence that such a transfer occurred, although we can not be sure of the extent of it.

General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of the Iraqi Air Force, claimed in his 2006 book that he knew two Iraqi pilots that flew WMD into Syria over the summer of 2002, which came before a later shipment on the ground. I asked Duelfer if Nizar Nayouf or the two Iraqi pilots were spoken with.



Ha’aretz has revived the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq’s WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.

The newspaper reveals that a 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria has been photographed by satellites at the request of a Western intelligence agency at least 16 times, the most recent being taken in January. The site is near Masyaf, and it has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains. This supports the reporting of Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who said in 2004 that his sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were in Syria.


www.haaretz.com...

pjmedia.com...
edit on 23-7-2012 by jibeho because: clarity



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join