The Arrogance and Hypocrisy of US Syria Stand

I have been mulling over the crisis of the day - Syria as a part of a bigger ongoing concern.

Many of the points that concern me are discussed here on ATS - US as Global Police Force (read Corporate Police Force), False Flag operations, BIG BUSINESS hegemony, Banking fraud and theft, Government by Corporations for Corporations, human rights atrocaties, the list goes on and on.

Personally, I've the belief that this Syria Crises is about keeping public attention off the Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Pact negotiations and the implications therein. It is an effort o keep both the public and our legislators distracted from this matters of grave importance.

As has been stated, 91% or more, of the public are against any military strike against Syria.

These attacks in the Middle East are part and parcel of a larger International Banking strategy as was pointed out in this thread and article in the little read Global Meltdown Forum:

Secret Agenda in Syria? Larry Summers and Cronies Opening the World to Criminal Banksters

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've gotten a bit off topic here but it is a huge scope (if you will allow me) Conspiracy that cannot be easily (for me anyway) organized concisely

My point here is the FACT that the US government (an arm of our CORPORATE masters) is the biggest singler user of Chemical Weapons in history

Here is a current article on the subject that includes references to programs I'd never heard of during the fairly recent past. As the US governmnet has gotten better at secrecy (largely learned from the Nazis IMH), who can say what is being done in OUR (US citizens) name that hasn't been made public.

A short quote from the article (note the Name and Date of the reporter mentioned)

As Seymour Hersh revealed in his groundbreaking 1968 reporting, we provided the South Vietnamese with the lethal arsenic-containing gas DM [4], claiming it was a “tear” gas for riot control, though the Field Manual clearly stated "not approved in any operations where deaths are not acceptable.” Throughout the war, Hersh and others continued to document the US use of gases, incendiaries and Agent Orange and other herbicidals to destroy not only Vietnam’s jungles but its food supply—a crime against humanity and nature.

There is the link to the entire article (which is well referenced):

www.alternet.org...

It speaks of Agent Orange, Naplam, Reagan & Bush 1's role in providing Iraq with material and know-how for "dual use" chemicals, Projects Tailwind & SHAD, Depleted Uranium....

The article is packed full of information on US Chemical attacks on civilian populations and our own and other nations soldiers. Where is the Honor in that?

Are our leaders in denial? Do they really believe this is a 'humanitarian' venture?

The USA has no moral athority to take any unilateral action on this issue. The USA needs to walk their talk before 'punishing' others for behavior that they purpetuate continually.

The world is getting tired of US Hypocrisy and so am I. I love this contry and her people (of all colors and creeds). The US can be a model of tolerance and understanding between differing peoples to be emmulated but now only stands for a model of corruption, hate and fear.

Happy Saturday all.

Here is a good compilation of the history of chemical weapons use the U.S. has shown..

A very brief history of the U.S. use of chemical weapons

After the Baath regime in Syria had allegedly used chemical weapons against the civilian population in the suburbs of Damascus, the US decision makers accused the Syrian government of breaking an international agreement reached at the end of WW I. According to this agreement, chemical weapons are not permitted to be employed in any sort of military conflict. From the way the US leadership speaks, someone who is not familiar with world affairs may think that chemical weapons have not been used in wars from the end of WW I until the attacks of the Baath regime on August 21, 2013. Contrary to the image the US political leadership has been presenting recently, from WW II to today, the US has the lead in the world in the development, production and deployment of chemical weapons on both military forces and civilian populations at home and across the world.

Very hypocritical, indeed.

reply to post by AsarAlubat


With all due respect...that's an exceptionally biased and spun article. It takes a very creative interpretation of war and weapons of war to call Napalm a chemical weapon. By that definition, every arsonist is a violator of the Chemical Weapons laws and those who actually take life by accelerant fueled fire are outright killers with WMD. :shk:

Similarly... If WP rounds are Chem Weapons, the treaty has no meaning whatsoever...as White Phosphorous is not a rare thing to find among Military supplies around the world. Agent Orange was pretty crappy of everyone and the spraying over S.E. Asia was very poor judgement ...

...but then, so was dumping Malathion all over the people of Southern California the to get the fruit fly. I stood below those damned helicopters while we got rained on. A friend of mine put an arrow INTO one of them we know hit because a news report that night on TV mentioned it landed with one. (Oh..the things we do in youth, eh?).

Real *WEAPONS* though? Well, I'm not aware of the U.S. using a recognized chemical weapons agent in wartime against anyone. Could be that we have and it never got out .... and it could be we just made enough to kill the planet a few times over and are still struggling with how to dispose of it all, just as it appears.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Not a very well thought out article actually. I'd be a bit embarrassed to link it as a credible source myself. The image of the children running from a Napalm strike does tug at heart strings though. The use of Agent Orange was a disaster. Wasn't a very good defoliant and those caught in the spraying on both sides died of cancer and other related ailments years and decades later.

What a waste

reply to post by SLAYER69


Not a great source. Getting better at that.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by AsarAlubat

 

With all due respect...that's an exceptionally biased and spun article. It takes a very creative interpretation of war and weapons of war to call Napalm a chemical weapon. By that definition, every arsonist is a violator of the Chemical Weapons laws and those who actually take life by accelerant fueled fire are outright killers with WMD.

As the OP mentioned Agent Orange and Napalm I tagged along.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
There is the link to the entire article (which is well referenced):

www.alternet.org...

It speaks of Agent Orange, Naplam, Reagan & Bush 1's role in providing Iraq with material and know-how for "dual use" chemicals, Projects Tailwind & SHAD, Depleted Uranium....

The article is packed full of information on US Chemical attacks on civilian populations and our own and other nations soldiers. Where is the Honor in that?

While I agree Napalm is not a recognized chemical weapons agent, can't say I agree something like that should be used ever.

Respects,

-AA

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
WP rounds are Chem Weapons, the treaty has no meaning whatsoever...as White Phosphorous is not a rare thing to find among Military supplies around the world.

Spot on wrabbit. Whiskey Pete, or White Phosphorous is used extensively to create illumination and tracer effects, and in no way constitutes employment of a WMD, even though, when used as the active warhead itself, white phosphorous is a chemical burn agent as well, which can be classified as a chemical warfare agent.

The agenda spinsters rely upon the general public's lack of knowledge of this, in order to fabricate a paper tiger wall of condemnation.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

With all due respect...that's an exceptionally biased and spun article. It takes a very creative interpretation of war and weapons of war to call Napalm a chemical weapon. By that definition, every arsonist is a violator of the Chemical Weapons laws and those who actually take life by accelerant fueled fire are outright killers with WMD.

With even more incredibility... setting fire in a building with a gallon of gas and a road flare is not the same as dropping a cluster of napalm canisters on it from an attack aircraft.

Napalm not a chemical weapon?

when used as the active warhead itself, white phosphorous is a chemical burn agent as well, which can be classified as a chemical warfare agent.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


I don't agree that Willy P (Military Slang for WP) is a chemical warfare agent, reason why is, chemical warfare has three type of chemical agents, and they are Blood, Nerve and Blister agents all have different effects and uses, for example some you don't want to use in dry conditions because the effects would be minimal, but others like in a dam area would work better than normal.

Willy P was designed and is used for destroying equipment, bunkers and signaling (marking). In all my years I never heard it's (willy P) use for anything except what I mentioned.

Originally posted by 19KTankCommander

when used as the active warhead itself, white phosphorous is a chemical burn agent as well, which can be classified as a chemical warfare agent.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

I don't agree that Willy P (Military Slang for WP) is a chemical warfare agent, reason why is, chemical warfare has three type of chemical agents, and they are Blood, Nerve and Blister agents all have different effects and uses, for example some you don't want to use in dry conditions because the effects would be minimal, but others like in a dam area would work better than normal.

Willy P was designed and is used for destroying equipment, bunkers and signaling (marking). In all my years I never heard it's (willy P) use for anything except what I mentioned.

Thanks for the clarification, you are partly right. Willy Pete, Willy P or Whiskey Pete - and it is called all of the above - (U. S. Military Acknowledges Use of "Whiskey Pete" (White Phosphorus) in Fallujah - Forbes News) is classified as an incendiary weapon in its classic employment. It is forbidden for employment however as a chemical burn agent, against personnel, by both the Geneva Convention and Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Forbes:

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US today defended the use of white phosphorus munitions against insurgents in Iraq last year but denied civilians were targeted. The toxic agent was used during what a US army journal called 'shake and bake' missions against insurgents in the battle for Fallujah last year. "

Wikipedia:

The British Army introduced the first factory-built WP grenades in late 1916. During World War II, white phosphorus mortar bombs, shells, rockets and grenades were used extensively by American, Commonwealth, and, to a lesser extent, Japanese forces, in both smoke-generating and antipersonnel roles. The British military also used white phosphorus bombs against Kurdish villagers and Al-Habbaniyah in Al-Anbar province during the Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920.

A Whiskey Pete charge when set off as a trap charge or as a round fired into a dwelling against personnel, and not to deny use of the dwelling for opposing forces or for illumination or tracer, for instance, is classified as a "chemical burn agent, not employed in an incendiary role" according to GlobalSecurity and the CCCW.

So it is used in three contexts, one of which is regulated.

White phosphorous grenade... (scroll down in link)

not a weapon?


Never used as a weapon, okay....

I won't go into the Israeli use of it on Palestinians, you can google that yourself. I also won't go into Fallujah and the lasting legacy of Uranium that is going to make Agent Orange look like Bath Salts.

Yah, it's not a chemical, its worse.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Interesting information .

Made a one liner because i want to fallow this one.

reply to post by intrptr

With even more incredibility... setting fire in a building with a gallon of gas and a road flare is not the same as dropping a cluster of napalm canisters on it from an attack aircraft.

It's precisely the same thing, save for scale. One little firebug with a 5 gallon can of gas in the middle of the night, can't cover a neighborhood. Then again, the same guy with a hand grenade can't cover a neighborhood either. Aircraft adds scale and weight transported to the spot, but it doesn't change the nature of what is being done. The method of death isn't chemical, it's fire.

You could swim or..kinda float anyway, in gooey napalm and after a good long time washing, be just fine afterward. Oh, don't take a smoke break or anything... Just sayin'...

I think the Chemical weapon is pretty well defined by the substance that is deadly or causes injury by mere contact. Physical, or breathing. Whatever. If it has a requirement for protective gear to be in the same area with, exposed? It's a chemical weapon.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by AsarAlubat

 

With all due respect...that's an exceptionally biased and spun article. It takes a very creative interpretation of war and weapons of war to call Napalm a chemical weapon. By that definition, every arsonist is a violator of the Chemical Weapons laws and those who actually take life by accelerant fueled fire are outright killers with WMD. :shk:

Similarly... If WP rounds are Chem Weapons, the treaty has no meaning whatsoever...as White Phosphorous is not a rare thing to find among Military supplies around the world. Agent Orange was pretty crappy of everyone and the spraying over S.E. Asia was very poor judgement ...

...but then, so was dumping Malathion all over the people of Southern California the to get the fruit fly. I stood below those damned helicopters while we got rained on. A friend of mine put an arrow INTO one of them we know hit because a news report that night on TV mentioned it landed with one. (Oh..the things we do in youth, eh?).

Real *WEAPONS* though? Well, I'm not aware of the U.S. using a recognized chemical weapons agent in wartime against anyone. Could be that we have and it never got out .... and it could be we just made enough to kill the planet a few times over and are still struggling with how to dispose of it all, just as it appears.

I don't believe the article was any more "spun" then this post. And I am coming to believe that we need to look at things such as pesticides (malathion - which I lived through in SoCal - the lady bugs and other beneficials are still not back to prior levels after 20 + years) need to be seen as what they are chemical weapons.

Just what does define a real weapon?

A weapon is an agent used against the enemy's combatants. Well - all the 'chemical weapons' mentioned in the article and others like Pesticides, Herbicides, etc (I'll even add GMOs) kill over time and make everyone a 'combatant' and everything an enemy.

I'm sorry but your (I assume) definition of 'weapon' of being only used in actual immediate battle is outdated. I didn't change the SPIN, the spin to WAR on EVERTHING has been going on a long time. The war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on this, the war on that, makes it relevant.

War is no longer defined by battles and armies. No one wins. The wars are against people. They are chemical, economic and profitable (that is the same).

Originally posted by wrabbit2000


I think the Chemical weapon is pretty well defined by the substance that is deadly or causes injury by mere contact. Physical, or breathing. Whatever. If it has a requirement for protective gear to be in the same area with, exposed? It's a chemical weapon.

That is your definition and it is lacking in scope. Many weapons kill over time and those are the ones you are chosing to ignore.

in my opinion, the weapons that don't kill outright (your definition) are more henious and unethical. They cause untold pain and suffering to cilivian and military alike. They are profitable however, and dilute any responsibility quite nicely however.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

The method of death isn't chemical, it's fire.

You mean cause of death though, right?

Its asphyxiation in both cases. Matters little to the "victim" whether they cannot breathe from seared lung tissue or disrupted nervous system.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
in my opinion, the weapons that don't kill outright (your definition) are more henious and unethical. They cause untold pain and suffering to cilivian and military alike. They are profitable however, and dilute any responsibility quite nicely however.

If they were meant to kill, they were weapons. You state you'd include Malathion. I'd love to see that pursued as what I think it was. Negligent use of dangerous chemicals over people. It wasn't a weapon since killing people wasn't at all meant to happen there. That makes an enormous difference.

Not least of which because a chemical weapons production line isn't directly liable for the harm those 'products' cause any more than Sierra can be sued for what their bullets eventually do. NEGLIGENCE however? Well now... That can be worked on clear back into the company that made the garbage, for supplying something harmful that we were all told wouldn't be. I like your definition more, but it's not a real or legal definition of a chemical weapon.

It's not viable to just start changing what we call things with no regard to how it's actually defined, IMHO.

reply to post by intrptr


Yeah, I've seen those movies and read the books too..... All death by fire seems to be asphyxiation.

I have this hunch...that when completely covered in the fire from all directions? Lung damage or lack of oxygen may not be the only avenue leading to death. To be real literal on this, Lack of oxygen probably isn't the thing killing the quickest when less than an inch is what separates inside from outside, burning at a furious rate. Just my hunch. Thanks for the correction though.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

Lung damage or lack of oxygen may not be the only avenue leading to death.

But the quickest. Burns if over more than 30 or 40 % of the body can lead to fluid loss, shock and death if not treated. There is no treatment for inhaling flames though. Like you said, there is this sudden whoosh of flame from a napalm attack and the hapless soul caught in that will involuntarily gasp...

thats all it takes.

Loss of consciousness is swift and death soon after by asphyxiation. That is what the weapon is desinged to be used against... people. A cloud of White Phosphorous smoke has a nearer to chemical burn thing with the lungs in that you can't breathe in the cloud and any you do inhale will sear your lungs not from burning, but like acid (which is also fatal to the respiratory system, depending on how much of it you get in your lungs).

Gasoline and white phosphorous are chemicals refined from petro chemicals (oil). They are placed in bombs and used against people.

Chemical weapons.

All weapons of war are either made from chemicals or propelled by them.

I know the hideousness as portrayed by a chemical attack is gripping our emotions right now, but really death is death in war: from a string of machine gun bullets that tear through a house filled with kids, a bomb that pops peoples skulls and lungs from a half a mile in any direction, or a gas cloud from a weapons detonation or even a gas cloud like a neurotoxin.

Dying is dying. Using that death construct to justify a more "humane" killing of many more Syrians on our part is a useless gesture.

Only the people that profit from that and immune to the fallout are crying havoc, to let slip the dogs of war.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000

Originally posted by FyreByrd
in my opinion, the weapons that don't kill outright (your definition) are more henious and unethical. They cause untold pain and suffering to cilivian and military alike. They are profitable however, and dilute any responsibility quite nicely however.

If they were meant to kill, they were weapons. You state you'd include Malathion. I'd love to see that pursued as what I think it was. Negligent use of dangerous chemicals over people. It wasn't a weapon since killing people wasn't at all meant to happen there. That makes an enormous difference.

Not least of which because a chemical weapons production line isn't directly liable for the harm those 'products' cause any more than Sierra can be sued for what their bullets eventually do. NEGLIGENCE however? Well now... That can be worked on clear back into the company that made the garbage, for supplying something harmful that we were all told wouldn't be. I like your definition more, but it's not a real or legal definition of a chemical weapon.

It's not viable to just start changing what we call things with no regard to how it's actually defined, IMHO.

1 - manslaughter doesn't require an intent to kill.

2 - definitions are changed all the time - and usually to the benefit of those who stand to profit by it. (i.e. the definition of Terrorism is an excellent example)

3 - your opinion about my post and article are noted. Thank you for participating.

reply to post by FyreByrd


" The USA has no moral authority to take any unilateral action on this issue. The USA needs to walk their talk before 'punishing' others for behavior that they purpetuate continually. "


Well said . Thats what this Crisis boils down to , Rightousness , or a Lack of.........