Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
WMD? How about Iran and Syria?
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, September 19, 2007

More proof that both have and are developing WMD other than nukes. From the Jerusalem Post:
Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

Reports of the accident were circulated at the time; however, no details were released by the Syrian government, and there were no hints of an Iranian connection.

The report comes on the heels of criticism leveled by the Syrians at the United States, accusing it of spreading "false" claims of Syrian nuclear activity and cooperation with North Korea to excuse an alleged Israeli air incursion over the country this month.
More from AFP:
But in the September 26 edition of Jane's Defence Weekly, Syrian defence sources were quoted as saying the explosion happened during tests to weaponise a Scud C missile with mustard gas, which is banned under international law.

Fuel caught fire in a missile production laboratory and "dispersed chemical agents (including VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent) across the storage facility and outside.

"Other Iranian engineers were seriously injured with chemical burns to exposed body parts not protected by safety overalls," the publication quoted the sources as saying.

Among the dead were "dozens" of Iranian missile weaponisation engineers, it added.
Something to keep in mind:
Syria began developing chemical weapons in 1973, just before the Yom Kipper War. Globalsecurity.org cites the country as having one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East.
I did a post about that a year ago. It's well worth a review given the recent strike by Israel.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Among the dead were "dozens" of Iranian missile weaponisation engineers, it added.
Let me say I hope they were using their first stringers then.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas
*Chuckles* sometimes good things do happen to bad people.

But hey, are we sure it isn’t really Bushnazi Zionneocon propaganda to drag us into another oil war for the benefit of the Jewish lobby?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
These would be weapons banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention that Syria hasn’t signed? The same Chemical Weapons Convention that the US isn’t going to actually manage to comply with until 2023?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
So, it’s okay if Syria has the weapons, as long as they haven’t signed the treaty?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Yeah, Retief is into this freedom to build WMDs thing.

See to some people there’s no difference between us and Syria or Iran.
He knows secretly Hafez al-Assad longs to sit at the big geopolitical table with GWB on one side and Shimon Perez on the other, holding their hands and singing multiple versus of Kumbaya.

If Assad has NBC WMD at his disposal, he’ll be much more peace loving, really.
He needs that stuff to counterbalance the increasing number of FASCAF falafels Lebanon has been acquiring recently.
(For the un-initied in high tech gadetry FASCAF stands for Family of Scatterable Foods)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The petard, she is a harsh mistress.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
All this points out the reasons why we should have put Syria and Iraq on the "to do" list well ahead of Iraq.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Steverino, as a matter of law, yes.

OK Looker, what is the difference between the US and Syria that requires them to be bound by international treaties they have not signed but the US not to be so bound? For a bunch of libertarians y’all are pretty hot on international law and world government all of a sudden.

 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Steverino, as a matter of law, yes.
I wasn’t asking about law, you blockhead. I was asking whether it was a good thing for Syria to have XV and Sarin, among other NBC weapons.

You really are an idiot, and you keep proving it with every post.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Steverino, by what authority do you propose to tell Syria what weapons it can and cannot develop? Do you also propose to allow say, Spain, to dictate to the US what weapons the US will be allowed?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Retief , Here’s a little construct for you

US: Liberated 50 Million + people from oppressive regimes in the last decade , Fought in 2 World Wars against repressive regimes of the worst sort.

Syria : hereditary dictatorship , virtual client state of a repressive theocracy . Uses assassination to influence the poicy of its would be puuppet state, Lebanon. Arms supplier/ transshiper for Hezbollah


Leaving aside treaties signed and such , why do you equate them ?
 
Written By: Chaosfish
URL: http://
He perfectly understands the differences between the regimes and their motiviations.
He’s just being oh so clever and enlightened.

In his view weapons developed to be used to slaughter civilian populations for idealogical reasons are identical to weapons developed as a deterrent to others using them.

No arguments can be made to alter that kind of thinking because:
he’s playing devil’s advocate or
he doesn’t understand the use of deterrent weapons or
he’s just a whackjob trying to rattle cages.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
this angle would seem to raise some serious questions about any kind of withdrawal from Iraq, etc, anytime soon.

Look again, at the weapons being amassed. Look again at the history of the region, and of Iran and Syria in particular. Does anyone really think that these two are going to behave themselves , absent a strong U.S. presence in the region?

I don’t think so, Tim.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Chaosfish, are you suggesting that your judgement of who the good guys are should determine which nations are allowed to develop what weapons? Doesn’t that seem a bit silly even to you?
 
Written By: retief
URL: http://
Retief,

1) Not my judgement. Demonstrated history.
2) It’s not a question of who should be allowed to develop what weapons , but rather how we as a nation should respond to a particular country having them

Lets try a hypothetical:
Kraplockistan and Turiana are both developing chemical weapons.

Kraplockistan is a fomer soviet republic. They are democrictizing to a large extent. Their records on human right while not perfect are improving , with a relatively free press and economy on the up tick. They are developing chemical weapons as a stated deterent to hostile neighbors developing them.

Turiana has been ruled by series of dictators and has worked to undermine the stability of neighboring states. It cooperates with other dicatorial regimes to destablize it’s region and has been solidly implicated in political assassinations.

Neither state is a signatory to the chemical weapons ban and neither state has a tight relationship with the US.

Which state should the US be more concerned about?

You continue to play these " who are WE to deny a sovereign state the use of any weapons that it is not forbiden by treaty to have" games.

I merely point out that the US needs to call a duck a duck.

 
Written By: Chaosfish
URL: http://
Best of Africa tours and Kenya lodge safaris including budget camping safaris in kenya, tanzania safaris & uganda gorilla treks; budget camping holidays in East Africa, beach holidays in Mombasa,Lamu and Zanzibar; lakeside homestays & culture around Lake Victoria.
 
Written By: pauline
URL: http://www.bestofafricatours.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider