Saddam Hussein was indeed accused of using chemical weapons, during the Iran-Iraq War, against the Kurds, and against his own people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
--- In [email protected], Cort Greene <cort.greene@...> wrote: > > http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/04/other-echos-of-iraq-in-nato-response-to.html > Other Echos of Iraq in NATO response to WMD in Syria > <http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/04/other-echos-of-iraq-in-nato-response-to.html> > <http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/> > > âI will kill them all with chemical weapons. Who is going to say anything? > The international community? F*ck them!â > - Al Majid, Saddam Hussein's Kurdish genocide point man | 26 May 1987 > > Ever since US President Barack Obama issued his first > warning<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/08/updated-obama-lights-assad-slaughter-in_4655.html> > to > the Syrian government that the use of chemical weapons in the civil war was > a *"red-line"* that might provoke a US military response, and even more so > after reported use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against the > opposition in December, March and April, there have been many commentators > that have heard echoes of US President George Bush's false charges that > Saddam Hussein was harboring chemical weapons, the excuse what was used to > justify an imperialist war against Iraq, in the current discussion of Syria > and chemical weapons. > > This report from the NY > Times<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/world/middleeast/white-house-in-no-rush-on-syria-action.html?pagewanted=all> > reflects > that perspective: > > The White House cited the Iraq war to justify its wariness of taking action > against another Arab country on the basis of incomplete or potentially > inaccurate assessments of its weapons of mass destruction. The press > secretary, Jay Carney, said the White House would *âlook at the past for > guidance when it comes to the need to be very serious about gathering all > the facts, establishing chain of custody, linking evidence of the use of > chemical weapons to specific incidents and actions taken by the regime.â* > > Why this is a false comparison > There are two very fundamental errors made by almost everyone making this > comparison. 1) Saddam Hussein was charged with possession of chemical > weapons, whereas Bashar al-Assad is being charge with using them to kill > Syrians in the present moment. 2) In the past two years Bashar al-Assad has > killed tens of thousands of Syrian civilians with many other weapons of > mass destruction including cluster bombs, artillery bombardment, air > strikes, helicopter gunships and ballistic missiles, there was no such > human slaughter taking place when Bush and company were making their > charges of simple possession. > > To make this simplistic comparison. i.e. false charges of WMD in Iraq circa > 2003 and questionable charges of WMD in Syria now, without considering > these two factors, means comparing apples to oranges. It means talking > utter nonsense while mass murder is taking place. > > The fact that the charge here is *use* and not possession, that it is > alleged that people have been murdered by the Assad regime with chemical > weapons at a time when he is clearly on a mass murder spree, means that to > raise Bush's false charges against Hussein as a warning against doing > anything to stop the ongoing slaughter in Syria is, in fact, to support > that slaughter. > > Using this false comparison the international *"community"* has danced > around Assad's use of chemical weapons and even after four attacks killing > scores of people and a mountain of other evidence, Obama in now saying that > he wants to be absolutely, positively, sure that Assad has used chemical > weapons before he declares that his red-line has been crossed. Since there > is no serious question as to whether Assad is committing mass murder with > just about everything else, this preoccupation with chemical weapons turns > into something of a macabre fetish. Consider what we know already. > > Evidence of Assad's Chemical Weapons Use > On Saturday, another of Assad's ex-generals has said he was ordered to use > chemical weapons against the Free Syrian Army. The general, who foiled this > ordered chemical attack and defected 15 March > 2013<http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/defected-syrian-general-claims-he-was-ordered-to-use-chemical-weapons-1.517952#.UX0wZDzegbQ.twitter>, > wasinterviewed by al > Arabia<http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/04/28/Syrian-army-ordered-to-use-chemical-weapons-says-defected-general-.html> > : > > A former army general from the chemical weapons branch, Zahir al-Sakit, > said he was instructed to use chemical weapons during a regime battle with > the FSA in the southwestern area of Hauran. > > He is the second defecting general to claim that he had been ordered to use > chemical weapons. On Christmas day last year, Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Jassem > al-Shallal, at the time the highest ranking member of Assad's army to > defect, did so and he brought with him a gift for the revolution, confirmation > that the Syrian Army did use chemical weapons in Homs earlier in December > 2012.<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/12/breaking-defecting-general-confirms-use_6391.html> > > We are not talking about some shadowy > "Curveball"<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29> > here. > These are officers with a history in the SAA, people the press can > interview and their testimony is backed up by a lot of other evidence. > > This type of testimony, which is generally neglected, is extremely > important because unlike soil samples, videos of victims or even doctor's > diagnoses, it establishes firmly who is using chemical weapons in Syria. > > Timeline of Syrian Chemical Attacks > In early December 2012 the FSA started > reporting<https://twitter.com/jtantley/statuses/277584183751221248> > the > finding of disturbing amounts of chemical warfare suites and gas masks in > the military depots they were seizing. > > Also the first week of December, US intelligence > reported<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/12/syria-obama-moves-assad-line-back-as_1581.html> > that > Assad had been moving his chemical weapons around and even loading sarin > gas into bombs. The White House > reissued<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/03/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-12032012> > Obama's *"red-line"* warning but dropped the prohibition against the * > "movement"* of *"a whole bunch of chemical weapons."* > > *22 December 2012* | The first use of chemical > weapons<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/12/breaking-chemical-weapons-use-reported_2829.html> > by > the Assad regime against its own people took place in Homs. Seven people > were killed when a poisonous gas was sprayed in the rebel-held al-Bayyada > neighborhood. This use was confirmed by video <http://t.co/m9JI6IbY> > tapes<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uLc4zoAmbRE> > , witness and doctor > testimony<http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/poisonous-gas-sprayed-rebel-held-neighbourhood-homs-medics-there-say> > and > the general who defected days later because he saw things were going where > he couldn't. Obama pretended not to see this first crossing of his red-line > even while, in secret, his own State department was saying there was a > "compelling > case"<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179355/-BREAKING-FP-says-Obama-ignored-chemical-weapons-attack-by-Assad-in-Syria#> > that > Assad's military forces had used a deadly form of poison gas. In public the > White House was > saying<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2013/01/us-assad-didn-use-chemical-weapons-in_2430.html>it > had concluded that Assad had not used chemical weapons in Homs. > > *19 March 2013* | Two attacks appear to have taken place on this day; in > Khan al-Assal, a village west of Aleppo and in > Ateibeh<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=628750323818774&l=ddbc8b560f>, > a village outside of Damascus. There has been a lot of > video<http://youtu.be/MKZ4QOKqtZI> > testimony <http://youtu.be/eEm20CyX2lg> and > evidence<http://youtu.be/-ME3RLI-yOc> posted > about the attack in > Ateibeh<http://www.ansa.it/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2013/03/19/Syria-gov-army-uses-chemical-weapons-Ateibeh-city_8427711.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>. > For example a man in a clinic bed reported <http://youtu.be/sgL8BeIzsv4>: > > *âMissiles came and they exploded, and they discharged something like > water, but it was dark. It emitted a very foul smell.â* > > Ateibeh is an area that had already been heavily bombed by the regime in > the past two years, an unknown number were > killed<http://www.longwarjournal.org/videos/2013/04/alleged_chemical_weapons_attac.php> > by > chemicals in this attack. > > The attack on Khan al-Assal, southwest of Aleppo was a chlorine smelling > gas according to this > report<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/19/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBRE92I0A220130319>. > Naturally the Assad regime blamed the rebels. Time > reported<http://world.time.com/2013/04/01/syrias-civil-war-the-mystery-behind-a-deadly-chemical-attack/#ixzz2RmfollFR> > : > > The attack killed 31 people, including 10 soldiers, and wounded scores > more. In the immediate aftermath, the Syrian government and the opposition > traded accusations. The government claimed that *âterrorists,â* its term > for the rebels that have been fighting the regime for two years, had fired > a *âmissile containing a chemical substanceâ* at the village of Khan > al-Asal in retaliation for their support of the government. Kasem Saad > Eddine, spokesperson for the opposition military council of Aleppo, accused > the government of attacking its own people in order to smear the opposition. > > *13 April 2013* | Two woman and two children > died<http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Alleged_Chemical_Attack,_April_13,_2013> > and > 16 others affected after two gas bombs where dropped from an army > helicopter<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/13/us-syria-crisis-gas-idUSBRE93C06820130413> > in > Sheikn Maqsoud, Aleppo. While the death toll from this most recent use of > chemicals was small, it represented a major escalations of the *"In your > face factor"* because no one but the government is flying helicopters in > Syria. It also represents the introduction of a new delivery system. This > also produced a lot of video evidence including > this<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-O5I9B8GqiQ> > , this <http://youtu.be/MHwmjCRDZAw> and > this<http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da1_1365882172> > . > > Now there is also a bit of physical evident if Times of London > reports<http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3720079.ece> > that > soil samples smuggled out of Syriatested > positive<http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Sources-Confirmation-of-chemical-weapons-use-in-Syria-309681> > for > sarin are true. The tests were done by UK government scientists at Porton > Down after they were retrieve through a MI6 convert > mission<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/mi6-tests-soil-smuggled-from-syria-for-nerve-gas/story-fnb64oi6-1226603770335> > . > > *Update 29 April 2013* | Reports of a new possible chemical attack are > coming in no sooner than this blog is published. Activists have reported > what appears to be a chemical attack in Saraqib, an opposition town in > Idlib province. Some of the victims are being treated in Turkey. The > cannisters dropped appear to be the same type dropped in Sheikh Maghsoud, > Aleppo. > EAWorldView<http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/4/29/syria-today-the-insurgent-attacks-on-regime-airfields.html#1708> > has > excellent running coverage on this. > Side effects of chemical weapons reported in Saraqeb, > #*Idlib*<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Idlib&src=hash>RT > @*SyrianSmurf* <https://twitter.com/SyrianSmurf>: اب٠اÙØرا٠> عبÙضرب سراÙب > باÙÙÙ٠اÙÙ... pic.twitter.com/HHIzVDCB1w <http://t.co/HHIzVDCB1w> > Assad Regime's response to the Charges > There are probably more facts in dispute in this conflict than there are > combatants. So when looking at the various stories or accounts that come > daily with every incident, it is important to consider the source and to > understand that the Assad regime is not an honest source, the Assad regime > is a gangster regime. > > When it comes to owning up to what could most charitably be called * > "short-comings"*, the Assad regime deals with its many internal *"My Lai > massacres"* with smiling denial. It is the gangster response. It is *"I > don't know nothing. I ain't done nothing. I was home with the flu."* It is > Al Capone, sitting in the barber's chair telling all the reporters how he > abhors violence. > > So it should surprise no one that Assad's information minister Omran Ahed > al-Zouabi was quick to respond to these new charges of chemical weapons > use. On 26 April 2013 he told > RT<http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-iraq-scenario-483/> > : > > *âFirst of all, I want to confirm that statements by the US Secretary of > State and British government are inconsistent with reality and a barefaced > lie, I want to stress one more time that Syria would never use it - not > only because of its adherence to the international law and rules of leading > war, but because of humanitarian and moral issues.â* > > So if you believe that the Assad regime has acted in a humanitarian and > moral manner to this point, you are a fool, but at least your mind will be > at ease as to the looming possibilities of a *"Halabja"* in Syria's future. > > Those inclined to give this denial any credit should consider also:Syria > denies using Scuds against > rebels<http://news.yahoo.com/syria-denies-using-scuds-against-rebels-142039961.html>13 > Dec > 2012rebuttal<http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2013/03/photographic-evidence-of-scud-missile.html>Syria > denies using cluster > bombs<http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/world/meast/syria-civil-war>15 > Oct > 2012rebuttal<http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2013/04/more-evidence-of-larger-cluster-bombs.html>Syria > denies Taramseh village > 'massacre'<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-15/syria-denies-taramseh-village-massacre/4131986>15 > Jul 2013rebuttal <http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/search?q=Taramseh>Syria > denies UN claims of government forces > massacre<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-denies-un-claims-of-government-forces-massacre-7945196.html>15 > Jul > 2012rebuttal<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/13/1109488/-Tremseh-Massacre-in-Syria-What-we-know#>Syria > denies it was behind attack that killed > 90<http://news.yahoo.com/syria-denies-behind-attack-killed-90-101246540.html>27 > May > 2012rebuttal<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/01/houla-massacre-reconstructing-25-may>Syrian > government denies reports of army shelling city of > Homs<http://worldunitednews.blogspot.com/2012/02/syrian-government-denies-reports-of.html>4 > Feb 2012rebuttal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Homs_offensive>Syria > Denies Navy Shelling on al-Ramel al-Janoubi > Neighborhood<http://sana.sy/eng/337/2011/08/15/364011.htm>15 > Aug > 2011rebuttal<http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4e4a17638>Syria > Denies News on Discovery of Mass Grave in > Daraa<http://sana.sy/eng/21/2011/05/17/347236.htm#>17 > May > 2011rebuttal<http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/mass-grave-found-in-daraa-syrian-town-at-heart-of-protests-against-assad> > Al Jazeera English did the Assad regime a real kindness when it truncated > the regime's response with the angry*"a bold-face lie"* phrase because as > soon as you include the *"we would never do nothing like that"* part, the > gangster smile starts to show through. > > > > What Standards should be Applied to the Evidence? > The evident required for action in Syria should be a lot less than was > required in Iraq because people are being murdered right now. By looking > for a lawyer's *"beyond a reasonable doubt"* level of proof, Obama is > giving Assad the benefit of the doubt and setting conditions so strict that > they aren't likely to be met before many more people are murdered. It is > the wrong standard of proof. The standard of proof, the level of certainty > we should demand with regards to Assad's use of chemical weapons must > necessarily be much lower than that applied to Hussein's possession of > chemical weapons. > > An analogy may help clarify why. If the police suspect that someone has an > illegal weapon, it is entirely right and proper to demand that they first > present their case to a judge and get a search warrant before they are > allowed to act on their suspicions. On the other hand, if there is an > active shooter taking people down, it would be absurd, even criminal, to > demand that the police visit a judge and get his approval before they > intervene to save lives. > > The popular Iraq/Syria WMD Analogy is the Wrong One > The popular comparison being made between NATO charges against Iraq in the > run up to war and Syria now is a completely false one but if we go back a > little further in history we can make an apple to apple comparison between > Iraq then and Syria now. > > We should be comparing the Western response to Assad's use of chemical > weapons against his own people now to the Western response when Saddam > Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people in 1983-1989. In that > case Hussein killed tens of thousands with chemical weapons while the West > looked on and did nothing. > > So far, that is the analogy that rings true today. > > The UN & US response to Iraq's use of chemical weapons > Iraq, under the fascist Baath Party dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, used > chemical weapons on a number of occasions in the 1980's both in its long > war against Iran and as part of a program of genocide against the Iraqi > Kurdish minority. > > Between 1983 and > 1988<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program#Use_in_the_Iran-Iraq_War.2C_1983-1988> > Iraq > made at least 14 chemical attacks that took tens of thousands of Iranian > and Kurdish lives. Mustard gas was used in almost every attack and it was > sometimes supplemented with Tabun or a nerve agent. > > One of the biggest attacks came on 15 March 1988, near the end of the > Iran-Iraq War, against the Kurdish town of Halabja. First sarin was used > and then mustard. 5,000 were slaughtered. We know that it was part of aprogram > of genocide <http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn> because of Iraqi > records that were liberated during the 1991 Kurdish uprising: > > On 3 June 1987 the Iraqi proconsul signed a personal directive, numbered > 28/3650, declaring a zone that contained over a thousand Kurdish villages > to be a prohibited area, from which all human and animal life was to be > eradicated. *âIt is totally prohibited for any foodstuffs or persons or > machinery to reach the villages that have been banned for security reasons,â > * the directive stated. > > This gas attack was just one small part of Hussein's genocide against the > Kurds which took 400,000 lives in 15 years. Kendal Nezan remembered what > happened in Halabja in Le Monde > diplomatique<http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn>, > 1998: > > *US DOMINATION PUT TO THE TEST*When our *"friend"* Saddam was gassing the > Kurds > *Ten years ago, the systematic gassing of the Kurdish population of > northern Iraq had far less impact on America. Only six months after the > slaughter at Halabja, the White House lent Saddam Hussein another billion > dollars. And in 1991, at the end of the Gulf war, US troops stood idly by > while Saddamâs presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular > uprising by the Kurds for which the American president had himself called.* > > The town of Halabja, with 60,000 inhabitants, lies on the southern fringe > of Iraqi Kurdistan, a few miles from the border with Iran. On 15 March 1988 > it fell to the Peshmerga resistance fighters of Jalal Talabaniâs Patriotic > Union of Kurdistan, supported by Iranian revolutionary guards. > > The next morning Iraqi bombers appeared out of a clear blue sky. The people > of Halabja were used to the successive attacks and counter-attacks of the > Iraq-Iran war that had ravaged the region since September 1980. They > thought they were in for the usual reprisal raid. Those who had time > huddled in makeshift shelters. The rest were taken by surprise. Wave after > wave of Iraqi Migs and Mirages dropped chemical bombs on the unsuspecting > inhabitants. The town was engulfed in a sickly stench like rotten apples. > The bombing stopped at nightfall and it began to rain hard. Iraqi troops > had already destroyed the local power station, so the survivors began to > search the mud with torches for the dead bodies of their loved ones. > > The scene that greeted them in the morning defied description. The streets > were strewn with corpses. People had been killed instantaneously by > chemicals in the midst of the ordinary acts of everyday life. Babies still > sucked their mothersâ breasts. Children held their parentsâ hands, frozen > to the spot like a still from a motion picture. In the space of a few hours > 5,000 people had died. The 3,200 who no longer had families were buried in > a mass grave. More... <http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn> > > Nezan then goes on to tell us how the Iraqi dictator was: > > *Protected by the West* > > At that time the regime was not worried about international reaction. In > the recording of the meeting of 26 May 1987, Proconsul Al Majid declares: > *âI > will kill them all with chemical weapons. Who is going to say anything? The > international community? Fuck them!â* His language may be coarse, but the > cynicism of the butcher of Kurdistan, later promoted governor of Kuwait and > subsequently minister of defence, was fully justified. > > Iraq was then seen as a secular bulwark against the Islamic regime in > Teheran. It had the support of East and West and of the whole Arab world > except Syria. All the Western countries were supplying it with arms and > funds. France was particularly zealous in this respect. Not content with > selling Mirages and helicopters to Iraq, it even lent the regime Super > Etendard aircraft in the middle of its war with Iran. Germany supplied > Baghdad with a large part of the technology required for the production of > chemical weapons. > > Just as is happening now, there was a lot of controversy, the UN was > dispatched to the scene, but nothing was really done: > > Despite the enormous public outrage at the gas attack on Halabja, France, > which is a depositary of the Geneva Convention of 1925, confined itself to > an enigmatic communiqué condemning the use of chemical weapons anywhere in > the world. The UN dispatched Colonel Dominguez, a Spanish military expert, > to the scene. In a report published on 26 April 1988, he confined himself > to recording that chemical weapons had been used once again both in Iran > and in Iraq and that the number of civilian victims was increasing. On the > same day the UN Secretary-General stated that, with respect to both the > weapons themselves and those who were using them, it was difficult to > determine the nationalities involved. > > Clearly, Iraqâs powerful allies did not want Baghdad condemned. In August > 1988 the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights voted by 11 votes to > 8 not to condemn Iraq for human rights violations. Only the Scandinavian > countries, Australia and Canada, together with bodies like the European > Parliament and the Socialist International, saved their honour by clearly > condemning Iraq. > > In point of fact, the United States was involved in a partnership with > Saddam Hussein with regards to the manufacture and use of chemical weapons > in this period. As reported > here<http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html> > : > > According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give > Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to *"calibrate"* its mustard gas attacks > on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct > Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early > 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with *"data from sensitive U.S. satellite > reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids."* The Postâs > source said that this data was essential to Iraqâs war effort. > > The United States re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26 > November, just over a year after Iraqâs first well-publicized CW use and > only 8 months after the UN and U.S. reported that Iraq used CWs on Iranian > troops. > > In 1985 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on > the State terrorism sponsorship list. After the billâs passage, Shultz > wrote to the billâs sponsor, Rep. Howard Berman, cited the U.S.â > *"diplomatic > dialogue on this and other sensitive issues,"* claimed that*"Iraq has > effectively distanced itself from international terrorism,"* and stated > that if the U.S. found that Iraq supports groups practicing terrorism *"we > would promptly return Iraq to the list."*Rep. Berman dropped the bill and > explicitly cited Shultzâs assurances. > > Four years later, the US response to the Halabja massacre was no better: > > In May, two months after the Halabja assault, Peter Burleigh, Assistant > Secretary of State in charge of northern Gulf affairs, encouraged US-Iraqi > corporate cooperation at a symposium hosted by the U.S.-Iraq Business > Forum. The U.S.-Iraq Business Forum had strong (albeit unofficial) ties to > the Iraqi government. > > The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to speak > to Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports that Iraq *"was using chemical > weapons on its Kurdish population."*This report reaffirmed that between > 1984 and 1988 *"Iraq repeatedly and effectively used poison gas on Iran,"* the > UN missionsâ findings, and the chemical attack on Halabja that left an > estimated 4,000 people dead. > > Following the Halabja attack and Iraqâs August CW offensive against Iraqi > Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the *"Prevention > of Genocide Act of 1988"* the day after it is introduced. The act cuts off > from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit > guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil. > > Immediately after the billâs passage the Reagan Administration announced > its opposition to the bill, and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill > *"premature"*. The Administration works with House opponents to a House > companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and > end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died *"on the last day of the > legislative session"*. > > According to a 15 September news report, Reagan Administration officials > stated that the U.S. intercepted Iraqi military communications marking > Iraqâs CW attacks on Kurds. > > U.S. intelligence reported in 1991 that the U.S. helicopters sold to Iraq > in 1983 were used in 1988 to spray Kurds with chemicals. > > > The United Nation's failure to do anything about Saddam Hussein's chemical > weapons use is informative for the current crisis: > > Although the UN's expert mission concluded in March 1986 that Iraq used > chemical weapons on Iranian troops, SCR 582 (1986) symmetrically noted *"that > both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for > the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Other > Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare signed at Geneva on 7 June > 1925"* and *"deplores...in particular the use of chemical weapons contrary > to obligations under the 1925 Protocol".* Resolution 588 (1986) did not > mention chemical weapons. In 20 July 1987, SCR 598 again deplored *"in > particular the use chemical weapons contrary to obligations of the 1925 > Protocol",* but does not elaborate. > > During the following years, the UNSC continued to be *"dismayed"* by > chemical weapons' continued use and the*"more intensive scale"*. They > passed more resolutions that *"condemns vigorously the continued use of > chemical weapons"* and *"expects both sides to refrain from the future use > of chemical weapons".* By August of 1988 the UNSC was *"deeply dismayed"* by > the *"continued use of chemical weapons"* and that *"such use against > Iranians has become more intense and frequent"*. Because of Western vetoes, > the UNSC could never clearly say it was Hussein that was behind the > chemical weapons use. > > The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for using chemical > weapons through non-binding Presidential statements, over which permanent > members of the Security Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March > 1986, the Security Council President, making a*"declaration"* and *"speaking > on behalf of the Security Council,"* stated that the Council members > are *"profoundly > concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical > weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian > troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued > use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 > which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons"*. The US voted against > the issuance of this statement, and the UK, Australia, France and Denmark > abstained. However, the concurring votes of the other ten members of the > Security Council ensured that this statement constituted the first > criticism of Iraq by the Security Council. > > At the time, the US and a number of other great powers were supporting > Saddam Hussein so there was nothing done about his WMD until be became a > problem much later. He didn't have any WMD by then but that didn't matter; > he had an ugly reputation for using them. > > Even if the current UN investigative mission can make it to Syria and make > an investigation, which looks very iffy at this point, it is highly > unlikely that the United Nations will actually do anything. > > The difference will be that this time, with Syria, Russia will play the bad > guy with the veto. > > Why would Assad use Chemical Weapons? > From The > Independent<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-and-sarin-gas-us-claims-have-a-very-familiar-ring-8591214.html>, > Robert Fisk has this report on Sunday: > > Syria and sarin gas: US claims have a very familiar ring*Reports of the > Assad regime's use of chemical weapons are part of a retold drama riddled > with plot-holes > * > Is there any way of escaping the theatre of chemical weapons?...In any > normal society the red lights would now be flashing, especially in the > world's newsrooms. But no. We scribes remind the world that Obama said the > use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a "game changer" â" at least > Americans admit it is a game â" and our reports confirm what no one has > actually confirmed. Chemical arms used. In two Canadian TV studios, I am > approached by producers brandishing the same headline. I tell them that on > air I shall trash the "evidence" â" and suddenly the story is deleted from > both programmes. Not because they don't want to use it â" they will later â" > but because they don't want anyone suggesting it might be a load of old > cobblers. > > CNN has no such inhibitions. Their reporter in Amman is asked what is known > about the use of chemical weapons by Syria and replies: "Not as much as the > world would want to know ⦠the psyche of the Assad regime â¦." But has > anyone tried? Or simply asked an obvious question, posed to me by a Syrian > intelligence man in Damascus last week: if Syria can cause infinitely worse > damage with its MiG bombers (which it does) why would it want to use > chemicals?More...<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-and-sarin-gas-us-claims-have-a-very-familiar-ring-8591214.html> > > > The Syrian intelligence man's question deserves an answer and that answer > goes to the heart of Bashar al-Assad's repression strategy and the role > chemical weapons are starting to play in it. Bashar learned well from his > father, both in strengths and mistakes. > > He learn to rule with an iron fist, but he also learn to finesse it a > little better. Halef paid a heavy political price when he exterminated > ~18,000 *"terrorist"* in Homs in a few weeks but Bashar knows better how to > boil live frogs in an open pot. He has already killed 3 of 4 times as many > by turning up the heat slowly. > > He started with snipers targeting peaceful protesters and when that didn't > clear the streets, he brought in the tanks. > > His weak spot, militarily speaking, has been the ordinary foot soldier. > Normally the infantry is the backbone of any army but Bashar's tended to be > a little too defection prone whenever they were thrown into battle. Thus we > have seen many times in this civil war, the rookie mistake of sending in > armor without supporting infantry. In the narrow streets of Homs and Hama, > his tanks proved vulnerable even to rebels armed only with Molotov > cocktails. > > He has always had certain *"elite"* forces organized along sectarian lines > that he could count on even to kill children with knives, no true gangster > would leave home without them, but fortunately for us all, such thugs are a > tiny minority. > > So standoff tools have been his weapons of choice. The goals have been > generalized destruction and murder with the aim of punishing any > communities that would dare to rise against his rule and making life > intolerable in any areas that his regime has been forced out of. > > But the strategy has always been to ramp up the slaughter in a slow 'n > steady way that would gain greater world acceptance than his father > enjoyed. So far he has succeeded admirably. Now ~200 Syrian's a day are > being slaughtered and the world doesn't give a fuck. > > At first he relied mainly on long range artillery and tank fire. He > introduced his air force very slowly, much like he is doing now with > chemical weapons. > > First there were a few reports of him using helicopters and Migs. They were > denied but the reports continued as did the sporadic use of aircraft. As > the media lost interest, the air strikes became more regular and wide > spread. As regular air strikes against his own cities gained worldwide > acceptance, he started upping the ordinances dropped from his planes, as > cluster bombs, incendiaries, and barrel bombs were introduced. > > As the opposition has gotten better at shooting down his aircraft, they > have just worn out, or his air bases have fallen, he has relied on bigger > and bigger ballistic missiles. Now the world has signaled its quiet > acceptance for a government that fires Scuds at its own cities. > > In spite of all this, he is still losing. > > <https://twitter.com/Alexblx/status/328253909246296064> > Chemical weapons are simply the next logical step in this escalation. Obama > saw that too in August and tried to draw a *"red-line"* in the Syrian sand > but Obama forgot about the danger of trying to bullshit a bullshitter. > > Assad is testing him on this, and it was Obama himself that told him how > with his *"whole bunch of"* underpass in the *"red-line."* However much > sarin or other chemicals Assad has spread around in the four incidents > reported since December nobody can yet argue that he has used *"a whole > bunch of chemical weapons,"* not when massacres on the scale of Halabja are > considered. > > He is introducing chemical weapons slowly, so the world can get used to > them again. He may have only used four shells to create four deniable > incidents. He may be diluting the poison to give contradictory results. > What exactly is a whole bunch? Who can say really? > > So to get back to the Intel guys rhetorical question, he is pushed to use > chemical weapons in spite of the destruction cause by his Migs because his > Migs are wearing out, or getting shot down, or as reported in one case, > bombing Assad positions before bailing out over opposition held territory. > > He will use chemical weapons because they are the perfect weapon for his > type of warfare. He can easily kill large numbers of people and make whole > cities uninhabitable and they can be delivered by rockets and artillery so > few killers are needed and even they don't have to look at their handiwork. > > He just needs to introduce them slowly so the world learns to accept it. In > the long run he may make what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds look like a > walk in the park. > > Don't Look for Anything to be Done Anytime Soon > In spite of the latest flurry of diplomacy around Assad's limited use of > chemical weapons, after we have tolerated as many as a hundred thousand > dead, two million driven from the country and more than six million driven > from their homes, don't look for those that could put a stop to it, to do > anything anytime soon. The NY Times > reported<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/world/middleeast/white-house-in-no-rush-on-syria-action.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130427&_r=1&;>on > Saturday: > > President Obama said Friday that he would respond *âprudentlyâ* and * > âdeliberatelyâ* to evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons, tamping > down any expectations that he would take swift action after an American > intelligence assessment that the Syrian government had used the chemical > agent sarin on a small scale in the nationâs civil war. > > *âKnowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria > doesnât tell us when they were used, how they were used,â* Mr. Obama told > reporters in the Oval Office. *âWe have to act prudently. We have to make > these assessments deliberately.â* > > British PM David > Cameron<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/world/middleeast/white-house-in-no-rush-on-syria-action.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130427&_r=1&;> > is > also counseling against doing anything rash, like rushing in to save lives: > > [Cameron] repeated that Britain had no appetite to intervene militarily. > > *âI donât want to see that, and I donât think that is likely to > happen,â* he > said. *âBut I think we can step up the pressure on the regime, work with > our partners, work with the opposition in order to bring about the right > outcome. But we need to go on gathering this evidence and also to send a > very clear warning to the Syrian regime about these appalling actions.â* > > The French also sound > like<http://www.monsey.com/french-fm-uncertain-if-chemical-weapons-used-in-syria/> > they > aren't willing to do anything but talk: > > French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in an interview to the *âEurope > 1â³* radio station that it is uncertain whether or not chemical weapons were > used in Syria. > > Fabius noted that even if there was use of chemical weapons, it doesnât > change a thing regarding the Western response policy and that the US and > Russia are examining all options with France. > > And from the Washington > Post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-wants-strong-evidence-of-chemical-weapons-use-in-syria-before-taking-next-step/2013/04/26/ae0551be-ae7c-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html> > : > > *âThis is going to be a long-term proposition. This is not going to be > something that is solved easily overnight,â* Obama said. > > The definitive proof the White House is seeking is likely to be weeks or > months in the offing, if it comes at all. A U.N. weapons team has been > blocked from on-the-ground testing, and it is not clear what other > scientific or intelligence information the White House would find > persuasive. > > RT <http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-iraq-scenario-483/> gives us a sense > of the resistance any UN team is likely to receive from Damascus: > > *Chemical inspection stalled: UN team canât be trusted âpoliticallyâ > without > Russian experts â" Syrian information minister* > > Without hard evidence, American accusations of chemical weapons use in > Syria fall short of UN proof standards, says a UN chemical inspector. And > in the way proposed, a probe would only result in an Iraqi scenario, the > Syrian information minister told RT. > > Russia has been Assad's biggest supplier of Scuds, cluster bombs and all > the other ordinances with which he is killing his own people. for that > reason many believe the proposed Russian experts can't be trusted * > "politically."* > > Foreign Policy summed > up<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/26/syria_chemical_weapons_strategy_obama> > the > situation this way: > > His careful, incremental introduction of chemical weapons into the Syrian > conflict has turned President Barack Obama's clear red line into an > impressionist watercolor, undermining the credible threat of U.S. military > intervention. Despite Obama's statement on Friday that "we've crossed a > line," Assad knows that the United States does not want to be dragged into > a Middle Eastern civil war and is attempting to call Obama's bluff. > > The Syrian regime's subtle approach deliberately offers the Obama > administration the option to remain quiet about chemical attacks and > thereby avoid the obligation to make good on its threats. But even more > worrying, Assad's limited use of chemical weapons is intended to > desensitize the United States and the international community in order to > facilitate a more comprehensive deployment in the future -- without > triggering intervention. > > At this point, there is no support for military intervention in Syria > either from the US government or the people. It is much the same in the UK > and the EU. > > Back in August, when Barack Obama told Bashar al-Assad that the use of > chemical weapons would be a *"red-line"* while he was already using Migs > and cluster bombs and everything else, he gave Bashar a green > light<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/08/updated-obama-lights-assad-slaughter-in_4655.html> > to > continue his slaughter as he has. > > Now Assad is calling Obama's bluff, he is testing the *"red-line"*, but the > self-proclaimed *"cops of the world"* are corrupt and work with the > gangsters, so unless people around the world unite in demanding action, > Assad is likely to get away with killing a lot more Syrians with poison gas > and chemical weapons will have taken a giant step back towards acceptance > as a tool of internal mass suppression. > > > > Why did they think we would come to their aid? > This was the question raised on one of the Sunday morning talk shows when > Clarissa Ward pointed out that the Syrian people are starting to become > very bitter about the refusal of the world, particularly the United States, > to come to their aid and do anything to stop their children from being > slaughtered. > > I think it is a fair question, so let me propose a few possible answers: > > 1) Because it is the right thing to do. > > 2) Because as long as most people can remember, we have been shouting *"never > again"* to the hilltops. > > 3) Because Superman would never let so many people get slaughtered and not > try to stop it, and we have spent billions peddling our culture and > polishing our image around the world. > > 4) Because the United States has justified every war it has ever fought in > the name of saving lives. > > Syria may become the other side of the proof that it was naked > self-interest and greed that have dictated when the United States went to > war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, even WWII. > > If simple humanitarian interests aren't enough to demand that the Assad > regime be stopped from any further use of chemical weapons, there is this: > > The worldwide ban on the uses of chemical > weapons<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol> was > one of the great progressive victories to come out of the first Great War, > and even though they have been superseded by nuclear weapons, which have > yet to be placed under any such ban, the importance of continuing to > enforce this prohibition against the use of chemical weapons cannot be > underestimated. Especially when Assad is demonstrating that they can be > used in the suppression of mass resistance to the state in a way that > nuclear weapons never can. > > That represents a strong reason why the governments of the world might like > to re-introduce them as tools and it is exactly why the people of the world > must demand that the ban against the use of chemical weapons be strictly > enforced, especially in the case of Syria now. > > If this is not done, the Assad lesson to oppressive states everywhere will > be: *"If your people get to bugging you too much, you can just spray them."* > > Click here for a list of my other blogs on > Syria<http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2012/12/my-syria-diaries_1014.html> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
