Britain, France Tell UN They Believe Chemical Weapons Used In Syria

Found this on Huffington Post

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Syria Chemical Weapons: Britain, France Reportedly Inform UN They Believe Chemical Weapons Were Used Posted: 04/18/2013 6:05 pm EDT
Britain and France have reportedly informed the United Nations that they believe there is evidence that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict in Syria.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, an official told the Washington Post that both countries addressed their concerns in letters to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon. According to the Post, the letters state that evidence suggests chemical weapons were used in and around the cities of Aleppo, Homs, and possibly Damascus.
The European letters come in the wake of mutual accusations by the Syrian regime and opposition fighters. Each side claims that the other fired a rocket with chemical agents in the town of Khan al-Assal, near Aleppo, back in March. The UN has deployed a team of investigators led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom to the region to probe the claims, but the mission has faced one hurdle after another. The team was first held on Cyprus because of safety concerns and is currently still waiting for authorization to enter Syria.

Hasn't the infamous "Red Line" been crossed time and again at this point???

is Colin Powell in on this report to the UN?

It appears as though we're dragging our feet in getting involved.

But diplomats say the United States has responded more cautiously. The United States, said one Security Council diplomat, has been “less activist on this” than Britain and France.
James R. Clapper Jr., director of national intelligence, told a Senate panel Thursday that accusations that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons are still being evaluated.

Are molotov cocktails 'chemical' weapons?

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Are molotov cocktails 'chemical' weapons?

I doubt Britain and France would deploy a team to investigate those. Seriously though, refrain from contributing unless it's constructive.

reply to post by pacifier2012


not really... it qualifies as an improvised incendiary weapon.

There have been several posts indicating that Al CIAduh in Libya which was nato installed, may have shipped chemical weapons to the US supported rebels...like the bunch that just declaired themselves Al CIAduh the other day

maybe the US is a little slow getting involved becauise of that

Originally posted by topdog81
Each side claims that the other fired a rocket with chemical agents in the town of Khan al-Assal, near Aleppo, back in March.

I guess "civilians" are counted as "Foreign Forces".

Syrian officials warned Monday that they would deploy chemical weapons against any foreign intervention, a threat that appeared intended to ward off an attack by Western nations while also offering what officials in Washington called the most “direct confirmation” ever that Syria possesses a stockpile of unconventional armaments.

Syria Threatens Chemical Attack on Foreign Force

Bunch of he said,she said::

Assad: Rebels used them
Rebels: Assad used them

Britan and France confirmed it so to be "far, balanced, and unafraid"

Chemicals weapons were used in Syria Good luck find who used them.

Never will, Yeah we all heard about that "red line" then Syria fell off the map, then NK and the imminent war popped up we were on the verge of nuclear war.

Then other domestic issues happened bout a week ago No war, No Syria talk til now.

I am taking myself out of all of it tomorrow people will have something new to talk about.

It's funny how people can find any justification for war, but never one for peace.

Still looking for the white hats here.

Sadly, they're probably all dead.

reply to post by beezzer


When you have people in charge like this, you cant expect hugs and kisses........

reply to post by sonnny1


I find it patheitic, that those who have never had to fire a shot or have a loved one in a war find such a cavalier attitude towards it.

That old bag has ordered more peoples death than a Mafia don.....yer talking ultimate evil there..............

The problem is if it's deemed the rebels used the chemical weapons, given the UK, France and US's "assistance" of the rebels in the form of training and armaments they're on very shaky ground if this is the case - which goes to show you why imposing regime change and arming insurgents isn't encouraged by international law (to whit having a 50 cal on the back of your Hilux isn't really grounds for forming your own government).

Given how we've handled the last 3 attempts in the region (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan) and how well those have gone, you'd seriously hope we're considering a different tact this time round...

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
The problem is if it's deemed the rebels used the chemical weapons, given the UK, France and US's "assistance" of the rebels in the form of training and armaments they're on very shaky ground if this is the case - which goes to show you why imposing regime change and arming insurgents isn't encouraged by international law (to whit having a 50 cal on the back of your Hilux isn't really grounds for forming your own government).

Given how we've handled the last 3 attempts in the region (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan) and how well those have gone, you'd seriously hope we're considering a different tact this time round...

I think you're Spot-On in that assessment. Though, I believe regime change is desperately needed in this particular case.

reply to post by topdog81


I'm slightly undecided on the whole thing, I've noticed a lot of the news coming out of Syria is in the form of Twitter feeds, shaky phone camera footage that shows nothing and staged rebel gun firing for the reporters. None of that should ever be classed as a reliable source.
Given the existence of software like scrapebox I think it is exceedingly easy to manufacturing grounds for regime change, especially given the fact that software exists to falsify dissent or express a specific view point on a massive scale - which is why it should never be imposed by outside forces without a clear UN mandate
(NATO is clearly not an unbiased group and unilateral action is even worse)

reply to post by topdog81


My guess is the opposition in Syria isn’t part of the Muslim Brotherhood or Obama would have jumped into the fray with American troops already. Obama is very concerned about making sure only the most fanatical Muslim extremists are in power around the ME. In Syria’s case, I guess Assad fits that bill.

Another sad example of the poor foreign policy and lack of leadership…

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Are molotov cocktails 'chemical' weapons?

Can I wipe out 10,000 people in a few city miles?

reply to post by topdog81


This reminds me of the Britam Defence hacking story from a few months back. Will looks for links.

Linkies...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now Israel is claiming to have "proof" that the Assad regime used chemical weapons last month.

Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the head of research and analysis in Israeli military intelligence, told a security conference in Tel Aviv that Assad has used chemical weapons multiple times. Among the incidents were attacks documented by the French and British near Damascus last month. He cited images of people hurt in the alleged attacks, but gave no indication that he had other evidence, such as soil samples, typically used to verify chemical weapons use.

"To the best of our professional understanding, the regime used lethal chemical weapons against the militants in a series of incidents over the past months, including the relatively famous incident of March 19," Brun said. "Shrunken pupils, foaming at the mouth and other signs indicate, in our view, that lethal chemical weapons were used."

He said sarin, a lethal nerve agent, was probably used. He also said the Syrian regime was using less lethal chemical weapons, and that Russia has continued to arm the Syrian military with weapons such as advanced SA-17 air defense missiles.

www.huffingtonpost.com...