I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,286
HAHAHHAHAA!
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad's forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January - 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad's regime.
Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons' Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.
He said: "At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.
"MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria.
"What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?
LMAO
f**kin hell....
Love it
Potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride have a great many industrial uses other than the manufacture of nerve gas.
Quote: Tursiops @ September 1 2013, 1:35 PM BSTPotassium fluoride and sodium fluoride have a great many industrial uses other than the manufacture of nerve gas.
Yes many I'm sure
So why did they revoke the licences then ?
And how about anthrax and bubonic plague? Do they have industrial uses too?
"The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act."
He!
Yeah, that's all typical journalistic nonsense from journalists who paid little or no attention to their science classes at school.
Let's make a more obvious example:
"Britain sold Steel and Brass to X and granted a licence to exporters to do it.... OMG Brass and steel are the main components of Military Explosive Shells... Why was this licence allowed! Rant Rant. "
Quote: lofthouse @ September 1 2013, 2:34 PM BSTYes many I'm sure
So why did they revoke the licences then ?
Because the politicians didn't pay much attention during their science classes either.
Quote: billwill @ September 1 2013, 2:39 PM BSTYeah, that's all typical journalistic nonsense from journalists who paid little or no attention to their science classes at school.
Let's make a more obvious example:
"Britain sold Steel and Brass to X and granted a licence to exporters to do it.... OMG Brass and steel are the main components of Military Explosive Shells... Why was this licence allowed! Rant Rant. "
Because the politicians didn't pay much attention during their science classes either.
Just keep telling yourself that our government is all sweet and holy and angelic and everyone else is the bogeyman
Quote: lofthouse @ September 1 2013, 2:46 PM BSTJust keep telling yourself that our government is all sweet and holy and angelic and everyone else is the bogeyman
But it's OK to accept everything you read in the papers as gospel? I haven't seen this story in the mainstream press, perhaps an indication of its value.
I believe that the Mail had to issue an apology and pay a large sum to a British defence company in the Summer. That concerned allegations it had made about the possibility of the Allies dropping chemical weapons on Syria and making it look like it was done by Assad. The allegations were based on e-mails allegedly involving the company that were later discovered to be fabricated, hence the compensation.
What that may suggest is that the Mail is more likely to have checked its facts this time. If licences were indeed issued in January for the chemicals mentioned - apparently for the construction of window frames - the fact that it occurred 10 months after the start of the uprising is the minor point. The major one is that there was considerable alarm in the previous month that nerve gas had been used in Syria on 24 December.
The New York Times reported that the concern was so great in January a considerable diplomatic effort was undertaken. It states that this involved the US, Russia, China and Middle Eastern countries. The UK and France are not mentioned. So much for the special relationship. The latter would though have been aware, even if sidelined. Meanwhile it is alleged that Vince and Co proceeded merrily with authorising exports.
Some might conclude that if nerve gas was used by someone in Syria in December, they had the stuff already. At the same time, the issuing of licences could seem at best very naive. Arguably, it has all the hallmarks of a bungle, a typical slovenly and profit-motivated decision. Mad staff cuts in Whitehall have led to a reduction in experience and also the time to consider many things carefully. This might well be one.
Quote: lofthouse @ September 1 2013, 2:46 PM BSTJust keep telling yourself that our government is all sweet and holy and angelic and everyone else is the bogeyman
I think you misunderstood my comment. It was basically meant to infer that the licence was originally issued with the issuer not knowing that the raw chemicals could be used to make weapons
and then
The licence was withdrawn because the issuer heard that the chemicals could be used to make weapons an the issuer panicked because he/she didn't know that the chemicals had other proper peaceful purposes.
i.e bungling all around.
Quote: lofthouse @ September 1 2013, 12:03 PM BSTHAHAHHAHAA!
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad's forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January - 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad's regime.
Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons' Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.
He said: "At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.
"MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria.
"What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?
LMAO
f**kin hell....
Love it
Lofty look up 2 things
One what the applications are for those chemicals
Two true size of syrias prevoloution chemical weapon stockpile
Quote: billwill @ September 1 2013, 4:34 PM BSTI think you misunderstood my comment. It was basically meant to infer that the licence was originally issued with the issuer not knowing that the raw chemicals could be used to make weapons
and then
The licence was withdrawn because the issuer heard that the chemicals could be used to make weapons an the issuer panicked because he/she didn't know that the chemicals had other proper peaceful purposes.
i.e bungling all around.
I do think that is the most likely. In the broader context, I happen to be odd enough to believe that the President of the United States should not be swayed by tiny individual countries. Having all key parties on board is, of course, preferable to the USA just deciding on our behalves but that does ideally mean all.
The mood music could appear to be that Cameron and Hague did a lot of the running, putting pressure on Obama albeit to reinforce the way he was thinking, and that they in turn were listening to one Tony Blair. Unfortunately, Obama has proven weak in this matter. He gave far more credence to the British pipsqueaks
than they have ever deserved. One thing is for sure. It won't happen again, whatever his magnanimity.
But if the USA is daft enough to bomb a stockpile of chemical weapons will that not result in a big cloud of poison gas roaming around aimlessly, making USA the users of Chemical Weapons.
Quote: billwill @ September 1 2013, 4:47 PM BSTBut if the USA is daft enough to bomb a stockpile of chemical weapons will that not result in a big cloud of poison gas roaming around aimlessly, making USA the users of Chemical Weapons.
Well, I would have thought that it now goes to Congress and at most any operation will be scaled down and properly planned. Experts will talk about surgical strikes and the extent of their precision. That's true when things go as expected. If the scenario you mention did happen, who is to say? International courts appear to be able to decide anything when it suits them. I frequently disagree with their somewhat clever-clever findings. There is hypocrisy too. Churchill might well have used chemical weapons had Britain owned them, irrespective of the convention. Plus people die in all kinds of horrible ways internationally and we do nothing.
I think the Americans and the French would be crackers to strike at this stage. The evidence is insufficient although we might hear more in the next two weeks. I'm not won over by arguments about deterrence. Someone has to be illogical to use such things in the first place. Nor do I agree that any absence of military action will encourage further use here, there and everywhere. To say no once isn't to say no every time.
Forget all this chemical weapons stuff - the yanks couldn't really give a shit about all that stuff, it's just an excuse
they just want to bomb the place to bits, then ensure some puppet is put in place that they can control
Like Karzai in Afghanistan
A New York Times report has revealed that unparalleled corruption in the Afghan government has been encouraged by the US Central Intelligence Agency. Since the start of the decade-long war, CIA agents have delivered cash to Afghan officials in "suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags."
Once they've blown the f**k of out the place they will give billion dollar contracts to US companies to rebuild it all
Then it's onto Iran...
"we've found compelling evidence Iran is planning a nuclear strike on Isreal blah blah " or some other bullshit
Then they'll get the tomahawk treatment too
Quote: lofthouse @ September 1 2013, 12:03 PM BSTBRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.
It's no quite on par with sellin' Hawk fighter jets tae Indonesia tae modder civilians in East Timor tho, aye? Y'can buy anything ye want in the worruld, unless ye're as poor and styoopit as North Korea.