Acknowledgement: Klevius is no fan of Assad. Not only because of the accusation of Syrian involvement in the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and support for muslim anti-Jewish terror groups etc, but also because of him being a muslim who happily and shamelessly, like most others, utilizes islam (the worst crime ever against humanity) for his agenda.
And those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan, OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real muslims
Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human Rights. Can you?
Not taking responsibility for the evilness in one's ideology is pathetic. Klevius will elaborate on this in the next posting. In a way so most muslims should understand - if they dare to admit it.
Why do Western politicians support islamic terrorists? Is it because Western tax payers are ignorant and misinformed about what islam really is? But the truth is that the victims' bodies are all labeled 'political islam'!
Fly Qatar islamofascism while bowing towards the Saudis
When George W Bush in a week managed to topple Iraq's chemical weapons using dictator Saddam Hussein (whose Sarin victims were counted in tens of thousands) he was spat on by many. However, in Syria everything seems the opposite. The Sarin is used by the terrorists but Obama & Co are asked to topple Assad. How come?! The answer is simple: Saddam was Sunni and Assad is Shia.
The fact that launching indiscriminate biological attacks makes absolutely no sense militarily for Assad means it’s far more likely that such attacks are being staged by rebels – many of whom are being led by Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra islamic terrorists – with support from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.
Gearóid Ó Colmáin, Global Research, May 30, 2013: According to a report in Turkey’s
state media agency Zaman, agents from the Turkish General Directorate
of Security (Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü) ceased 2 kg of sarin gas
in the city of Adana in the early hours of yesterday morning. The
chemical weapons were in the possession of Al Nusra terrorists
believed to have been heading for Syria.
Sarin gas is a colourless, odorless
substance which is extremely difficult to detect. The gas is banned
under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
The EGM identified 12 members of the AL
Nusra terrorist cell and also ceased fire arms and digital equipment.
This is the second major official confirmation of the use of chemical
weapons by
Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria after UN
inspector Carla Del Ponte’s recent statement confirming the use of
chemical weapons by the Western-backed terrorists in Syria.
The Turkish police are currently
conducting further investigations into the operations of Al-Qaeda
linked groups in Turkey.
This further confirmation that the
Syrian ‘rebels’ are using chemical weapons while also using
Turkey as a base of terrorist operations against Syria, could cause
further domestic problems for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
whom Turkish opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu has called the
‘chief of the terrorists’.
The Syrian National Coalition abroad
has persisted in accusing the Syrian government of using chemical
weapons. The Syrian National Coalition Head of Media Khaled Saleh
told Al Jazeera on May 26th that Turkish authorities were certain
about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.
Saleh also claimed that he was in
contact with several ‘brigades’ fighting in Syria. Perhaps, Mr.
Saleh should be advised to consult the Turkish police now that one of
his ‘brigades’ has been arrested in possession of chemical
weapons.
Unsurprisingly, this Turkish report
failed to make international headlines. From the beginning of the
Syrian war, the international press agencies have attempted to
portray the Al-Qaeda invasion of Syria as a ‘popular revolution’,
which started out as a ‘peaceful protest’ against a ‘brutal
regime’. The fact that there was never a modicum of evidence to
support such claims has not hindered the avalanche of vituperation
and demonization of Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian
Arab Republic.
France’s daily Le Monde published an
‘exclusive’ report on the 27th of May 2013 which claimed to have
‘proof’ that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons
‘against its own people’. However, the report simply relied on
statements by ‘activists’ and ‘rebels’, who most serious
commentators have described as unreliable sources of information.
Le Monde’s report came just in time
as the French government was pushing the European Union to lift the
embargo on arms to the terrorists in Syria. The confirmation by
previous articles in Le Monde that the opposition in Syria is in fact
Al Qaeda, together with the reluctance of EU
partners Germany, Austria, and other countries to openly back the
terrorists, has isolated Paris and London, exposing the British and
French governments as state sponsors of terrorism.
In January 2013, Russian television
station RT published leaked documents from British corporation Britam
Defense, which revealed a plan by Qatar to deliver chemical weapons
to Homs in Syria, with the aid of Britam Defense. The British company
was to provide Ukrainian personnel to act as Russian military
advisors in order to implicate the Russian government in the crime.
The email suggested that the Qataris were providing ‘enormous’
amounts of money for the plan and that it was approved by
Washington.
The Japhat Al-Nosra terrorist
organization has not hidden its desire to gas the Alawite minority in
Syria. A video was posted on U Tube on December 4th 2012 showing
terrorists testing chemical weapons on rabbits, while vowing to
exterminate Alawite Syrians in a similar fashion.
Iran’s Press TV also published a
report which showed terrorists using chemical weapons.
As the Western-backed terrorists lose
ground to government forces in Syria, the likelihood of further
massacres committed by the terrorists and blamed on the Syrian
government grows. However, as more and more reports contradict the
official media narrative on the Syrian war, the voices of truth are
acquiring critical mass, threatening to bring down once and for all
NATO’s oppressive media empire.
Jabhat al-Nusra, Obama's & Co's terrorist ally against Syria
Many of Jabhat al-Nusra's members are
Syrians who were part of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Jihadist network
fighting the American forces in Iraq. Many of these Syrians remained
in Iraq after the withdrawal of American forces, but upon the
outbreak of Syrian civil war in 2011, the Islamic State of Iraq sent
the Syrian Jihadists and individual Iraqi experts in guerrilla
warfare into Syria. A number of meetings were held between October
2011 and January 2012 in Rif Dimashq and Homs where the objectives of
the group were determined.
The al-Nusra Front released its first
public statement on 24 January 2012 in which they called for armed
struggle against the Syrian government. The group claimed
responsibility for the 2012 Aleppo bombings, the January 2012
al-Midan bombing, the March 2012 Damascus bombings the murder of
journalist Mohammed al-Saeed and possibly the 10 May 2012
Damascus bombing.
Patrick Henningsen: Chemical weapon only miles away from
the very hotel that the UN weapons inspector booked into only a few
days ago. They see this as a distraction and if we look at the
history of this particular region where the attack is set to take
place it is very active with Al-Nusra Front and they also have been
implicated in using make shifts chlorine bombs in Aleppo back in
March, so there is a track record there.
RT: It is still clear why the fingers
are being pointed at the Syrian government, because it is the
government which has chemical weapons.
PH: All this at this point is innuendo.
This is why the UN team is in Damascus to investigate these claims.
Unfortunately Washington, London and Paris drew a red line in 2012.
They said that if any side deploys chemical weapons then that would
be a pretext for a military intervention either by NATO or some sort
of coalition force backed by US resolution. Who benefits from a
chemical attack in Syria? The opposition benefits. It is quite
obvious that the government does not benefit. The opposition benefits
because that would be the key to unlock the airstrikes and bombing
campaign over Syria, a la Libya. The opposition would like a
Libyan-style coalition with NATO in order to force the regime in
power out of Damascus. They benefit from any report of chemical
attack in Syria.
RT: Al-Arabiya puts the number of
killed at more than 600 while other main stream media talk about just
dozen of victims. Why is there such a difference?
PH: You have to consider the source. I
believe Al-Arabiya has certain affiliations with certain Gulf states
who might also have some interest in this particular conflict already
so might see a more exaggerated report on different sides. But again,
there is no independent verification, it is simply anecdotal and
innuendo to this point. But the timing of it is very suspect.
William Engdahl: In the text of (Saudi) Al Arabiya's article we read that the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said dozens of people were killed, including children, in fierce bombardment.” Now the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) has been the source of every news report negative against the Syrian Assad government since the war began in 2011. More curious about the humanitarian-sounding SOHR is the fact, as uncovered by investigative journalists, that it consists of a sole Syrian refugee who has lived in London for the past 13 years named Rami Abdul Rahman, a Syrian Sunni muslim who owns a clothing shop and is running a Twitter page from his home. Partly owing to a very friendly profile story on the BBC, he gained mainstream media credibility. He is anything but unbiased.
The other aspect of the suspicious reports is the “convenient” fact they coincide with the arrival two days earlier of an official UN weapons inspection team, allowed by the government, to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use in the Syrian war. It begs the most obvious question: What conceivably would Bashar al Assad stand to gain from using banned chemical weapons just at the time he has agreed to let a UN chemical weapons team into Syria?
Sarin and its distribution
Paul from Allen Vanguard:
How long would it take Sarin to become harmless, or dissipate? In general terms are we talking minutes, hours, weeks?
This is difficult to answer because of the variables that could exist but Sarin is a non-persistent and highly volatile liquid which disperses and vaporises rapidly dependent on conditions of temperature and air flow. A single projectile of Sarin fired in a hot, sunny featureless environment during a windy day could feasibly take minutes to dissipate. At the other end of the spectrum, a sustained bombardment/barrage in an urban area during a period of no wind and no sustained periods of sun would be more likely to create a scenario where pockets of exposed Sarin would last for days, unexposed Sarin could last for weeks and CW UXO could remain in the area for years.
Dan Kaszeta, a US Army Chemical Corps veteran:
Submuntions: A highly effective way of dissemination would be a munition that scattered bomblets or submunitions at some height, with the submunitions designed for ground impact detonation. Other factors being equal (…but they often aren’t), submunitions are generally considered a more efficient method of dispensing Sarin.
In Tokyo it had been intended initially to aerosolise but ended up being stabbed bags left to evaporate (which is pretty good due to the speed at which it evaporates).
The canisters recovered from the scene of the attacks matched canisters also recovered from an attack reported in Sheikh Maqsoud in Aleppo, where there were again claims of them being dropped from a helicopter, with photographs showing the canister remains covered in white-grey powder.
The same design of canister has also been filmed in a cache of weapons reportedly captured by the Syrian opposition from the Syrian military, and a journalist in Syria has shown the image of the canister to various armed group, many of which have claimed to have seen them in the possession of opposition fighters, claiming to have captured them from the Syrian army.
Another type of grenade, using an identical fuze, was also photographed in Syria, with the photographer being told it was a normal smoke grenade.
The Russian government has claimed the Syrian opposition was responsible for the Khan al-Assal attack, with a DIY rocket delivering a payload of Sarin.
What do you think would be involved in putting together a DIY chemical warhead for a DIY rocket?
Crude devices are not that hard. Removal of explosives or whatever payload had been carried, followed by introducing the agent. You would need protective gear and it wouldn’t be very safe doing the filling.
Accuracy would be lost (if a missile) and performance of rockets could be affected by different weight distribution. I don’t really want to go in to too much detail about the how, lest I give ideas or advice, but early CW munitions were very simple.
If you don’t really care where it goes then its achievable.
Considering the Russian government's claim that a DIY rocket was used in the attack, what would be the most effective dispersal method once the rocket reached it's target?
Air burst or base ejection were used by military munitions but require more complex fuses. If aimed at hard targets then you’d get a level of dispersal by simple impact, but if it hit the earth then the payload could just get driven in to the earth.
Syrian Rebels use D-30 Howitzers capable of distributing Sarin
The D-30 is a Russian-made 122 mm towed howitzer that first entered service in the 1960s with the Russian army. The D-30 is designed to defeat unsheltered and covered manpower, weapons and military equipment of the enemy at the forward edge of the battle area and to the regiment mission depth. The D-30 has been widely exported and used in wars around the world, notably in the Middle East, and particularly in the Iran-Iraq War.
President al-Assad in an interview by the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung after the previous chemical weapons attack:
Had they obtained a single strand of
evidence that we had used chemical weapons, do you not think they
would have made a song and dance about it to the whole world?, then
where is the chain of custody that led them to a such result?
These allegations are ludicrous. The
terrorist groups used chemical weapons in Aleppo; subsequently we
sent an official letter to the United Nations requesting a formal
investigation into the incident. Britain and France blocked this
investigation because it would have proven the chemical attacks were
carried out by terrorist groups and hence provided conclusive
evidence that they (Britain and France) were lying. We invited them
to investigate the incident, but instead they wanted the inspectors
to have unconditional access to locations across Syria, parallel to
what inspectors did in Iraq and delved into other unrelated issues.
We are a sovereign state; we have an army and all matters considered
classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain,
nor France. They will only be allowed access to investigate the
incident that occurred in Aleppo.
Therefore, all the claims relating to
the use of chemical weapons is an extension of the continuous
American and Western fabrication of the actual situation in Syria.
Its sole aim is to justify their policies to their public opinion and
use the claim as a pretext for more military intervention and
bloodshed in Syria.
Interviewer: The protests started in
Syria peacefully before they turned into an armed struggle. Your
critics claim that you could have dealt with the protests through
political reforms, which makes you partly responsible for the
destruction in Syria. What is your take on this?
President Assad: We started the reforms
from the first days of the crisis and, perhaps even to your surprise,
they were initiated years before the crisis. We issued a number of
new legislations, lifted the emergency law and even changed the
constitution through a referendum. This is a well-known fact to the
West; yet what the West refuses to see is that from the first weeks
of the protests we had policemen killed, so how could such protests
have been peaceful? How could those who claim that the protests were
peaceful explain the death of these policemen in the first week?
Could the chants of protesters actually kill a policeman?
From the beginning of the crisis, we
have always reiterated that there were armed militants infiltrating
protesters and shooting at the police. On other occasions, these
armed militants were in areas close to the protests and shot at both
protesters and police forces to lead each side into-believing that
they were shot at by the other. This was proven through
investigations and confessions, which were publicised on a large
scale in the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment