Chemical Weapons on Sudanese Civilians

[jescol]

Syria Tested Chemical Weapons on Sudanese Civilians

German daily Die Welt is preparing to run a story claiming that Syria recently tested chemical weapons on civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan, killing dozens: Syria tested chemical arms on civilians in Darfur region: press. (Hat tip: Matthew.)

BERLIN : Syria tested chemical weapons on civilians in Sudan’s troubled western Darfur region in June and killed dozens of people.

The German daily Die Welt newspaper, in an advance release of its Wednesday edition, citing unnamed western security sources, said that injuries apparently caused by chemical arms were found on the bodies of the victims.

It said that witnesses quoted by an Arabic news website called ILAF in an article on August 2 had said that several frozen bodies arrived suddenly at the “Al-Fashr Hospital” in the Sudanese capital Khartoum in June.

Die Welt said the sources had indicated that the weapons tests were undertaken following a military exercise between Syria and Sudan.

Syrian officers were reported to have met in May with Sudanese military leaders in a Khartoum suburb to discuss the possibility of improving cooperation between their armies.

According to Die Welt, the Syrians had suggested close cooperation on developing chemical weapons, and it was proposed that the arms be tested on the rebel SPLA, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, in the south.

But given that the rebels were involved in peace talks, the newspaper continued, the Sudanese government proposed testing the arms on people in Darfur.

 

[Annie]

Syria Tested Chemical Weapons on Sudanese Civilians

German daily Die Welt is preparing to run a story claiming that Syria recently tested chemical weapons on civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan, killing dozens: Syria tested chemical arms on civilians in Darfur region: press. (Hat tip: Matthew.)

BERLIN : Syria tested chemical weapons on civilians in Sudan’s troubled western Darfur region in June and killed dozens of people.

The German daily Die Welt newspaper, in an advance release of its Wednesday edition, citing unnamed western security sources, said that injuries apparently caused by chemical arms were found on the bodies of the victims.

It said that witnesses quoted by an Arabic news website called ILAF in an article on August 2 had said that several frozen bodies arrived suddenly at the “Al-Fashr Hospital” in the Sudanese capital Khartoum in June.

Die Welt said the sources had indicated that the weapons tests were undertaken following a military exercise between Syria and Sudan.

Syrian officers were reported to have met in May with Sudanese military leaders in a Khartoum suburb to discuss the possibility of improving cooperation between their armies.

According to Die Welt, the Syrians had suggested close cooperation on developing chemical weapons, and it was proposed that the arms be tested on the rebel SPLA, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, in the south.

But given that the rebels were involved in peace talks, the newspaper continued, the Sudanese government proposed testing the arms on people in Darfur.

LINK PLEASE! Whoops, so worried about the link, that I forgot to say, WOW! This is important, if true!

 

[nbdysfu]

LINK PLEASE! Whoops, so worried about the link, that I forgot to say, WOW! This is important, if true!

link-channel news asia

 

[NATO AIR]

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,1594,4789_W_1328861,00.html

Die Welt says Syria tested chemical arms

The German daily newspaper Die Welt claims that Syria tested chemical weapons on civilians in Sudan's Darfur region in June resulting in the deaths of dozens of people. The newspaper says that "unnamed western security sources" indicated that the weapons tests were undertaken following a military exercise between Syria and Sudan. The accusations appear in an advance release of its Wednesday edition. The United States has accused Syria in the past of trying to acquire materials and the know-how to develop chemical weapons and claims that Sudan has been seeking to improve its capability to produce them for many years.

 

[Annie]

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,1594,4789_W_1328861,00.html

Die Welt says Syria tested chemical arms

The German daily newspaper Die Welt claims that Syria tested chemical weapons on civilians in Sudan's Darfur region in June resulting in the deaths of dozens of people. The newspaper says that "unnamed western security sources" indicated that the weapons tests were undertaken following a military exercise between Syria and Sudan. The accusations appear in an advance release of its Wednesday edition. The United States has accused Syria in the past of trying to acquire materials and the know-how to develop chemical weapons and claims that Sudan has been seeking to improve its capability to produce them for many years.

Wow, again! Now, we should be able to figure out where they got the weapons from. Any wild guesses?

 

[jescol]

In addition to finding the story in 2 german newspapers, and a site called little green footballs.com

 

[NATO AIR]

well there was this dictator who was supposed to have a lot of chemical weapons... he's not around anymore but i bet his stockpiles are...in SYRIA!

 

[Annie]

well there was this dictator who was supposed to have a lot of chemical weapons... he's not around anymore but i bet his stockpiles are...in SYRIA!

Think that's possible?

 

[NATO AIR]

sure would explain some things for all of us

guess it would on a lot of people's criticism of the war

 

[nbdysfu]

sure would explain some things for all of us

guess it would on a lot of people's criticism of the war

hey, thats a bioweapon

Remember the 18 tons of chemical WMD that came out of Syria to be used in Lebanon?

 

[wade]

There you go again jumping at any opportunity to try to justify Bush's war on Iraq.

Do you even bother to do any research to see if your contention that Syria must have provided these weapons and therefore they must have come from Iraq? I guess not, since if you did you'd realize that Sudan has had a chemical weapons program going for years, they don't need to import them! If I recall correctly, they were accused of having them as early as 1996 or 97 (perhaps even earlier), and of having used them in 1998 or 1999 in Southern Sudan. Don't you remember Clinton (that evil bastard) bombing a suspected Sudanese chemical weapons plant in 1998?

Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Russia are all supposed to have provided technical assistance to the Sudanese, with Iraqi intelligence brokering the deal, though this information is sketchy and possibly not entirely true.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/sudan/kafuri.htm

There is evidence of Iraqi transfer of chemical weapons to Sudan, but this is well before 911, back in the period immeadiately following the Gulf War and appears to have been over with by 1997.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/sudan/cw/

Interestingly, it seems that Britain has been providing the core chemicals to Sudan and other countries making it possible for them to produce these weapons.

http://www.sundayherald.com/25366

And no, chemical weapons are not bio-weapons, though there is evidence they may have bio-weapons or be developing them as well.

Sorry, but this is no evidence at all that Iraq had WMD's when Bush said he "knew for a fact" Iraq had large stockpiles of them.

Wade.

 

[nbdysfu]

There you go again jumping at any opportunity to try to justify Bush's war on Iraq.

There's nothing wrong with showing curiosity.

And secondly since I surmise you actually mean to say that I was jumping to a conclusion, I'll ask you to back that up by showing where exactly I have posted that this article is further evidence of Saddam's dealings. I give you the whole message board. Run wild. Don't jump. :teeth:

Do you even bother to do any research to see if your contention that Syria must have provided these weapons and therefore they must have come from Iraq?

again, where did I say that? what did I tell you about the jumping?

I guess not, since if you did you'd realize that Sudan has had a chemical weapons program going for years, they don't need to import them!

that may be true,

If I recall correctly, they were accused of having them as early as 1996 or 97 (perhaps even earlier), and of having used them in 1998 or 1999 in Southern Sudan. Don't you remember Clinton (that evil bastard) bombing a suspected Sudanese chemical weapons plant in 1998?

I do remember something about an aspirin factory...



Can you substantiate that Kafuri is a chemical weapons facility with a UN press release? I couldn't find anything about a Kafuri chemical weapons facility from the UN website, NYT, or BBC, or Wiki. Google only brought up the FAS article of which the globalsecurity page is a duplicate. Need more input.

Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Russia are all supposed to have provided technical assistance to the Sudanese, with Iraqi intelligence brokering the deal, though this information is sketchy and possibly not entirely true.
There is evidence of Iraqi transfer of chemical weapons to Sudan, but this is well before 911, back in the period immeadiately following the Gulf War and appears to have been over with by 1997.

I wouldn't be surprised. I don't know what this points out other than that syria had not until recently been a part of the Chemical arms trading process, and that Saddam only stopped his WMD stockpiling and marketing when we resorted to physical attacks, at least as far as we know, since we also bombed an aspirin factory.

Interestingly, it seems that Britain has been providing the core chemicals to Sudan and other countries making it possible for them to produce these weapons.

http://www.sundayherald.com/25366

Ah. The sunday herald. Known for its brilliantly unbiased articles. Yes, what could a Scottish based antisemitic tabloid possibly have against a pro Iraq War Britain? Trichlorophenol is a common pesticide, herbicide, anti-mildew chemical, that, like some common fertilizers, can be used as terrorist weapons.

And no, chemical weapons are not bio-weapons, though there is evidence they may have bio-weapons or be developing them as well.

Dude lighten up. I was talking about the monkey;

--------------
Quote =NATO AIR
sure would explain some things for all of us

guess it would on a lot of people's criticism of the war
---------------


hey, thats a bioweapon

Although I will say that when I said Lebanon in my last post, I meant to say Jordan

Sorry, but this is no evidence at all that Iraq had WMD's when Bush said he "knew for a fact" Iraq had large stockpiles of them.

Wade.

Well heck wade. I knew for a fact that saddam had enough stockpiles of WMD as recently as 1998 that he was implicated in selling them on the international market. I also know that the UN has released this report that admits that they have found evidence of Iraq smuggling out large amounts of equipment for the production of WMD delivery systems and possibly chemical weapons centrifuges, before, during and after the beginning of the Iraq war. And yet while its admission could have halted the US bid to go to war, Iraq never released any physical proof that they had disposed of these weapons.

 

[wade]

There's nothing wrong with showing curiosity.

And secondly since I surmise you actually mean to say that I was jumping to a conclusion, I'll ask you to back that up by showing where exactly I have posted that this article is further evidence of Saddam's dealings. I give you the whole message board. Run wild. Don't jump. :teeth:

I was refering to NATO and Kathianne's posts.

Can you substantiate that Kafuri is a chemical weapons facility with a UN press release? I couldn't find anything about a Kafuri chemical weapons facility from the UN website, NYT, or BBC, or Wiki. Google only brought up the FAS article of which the globalsecurity page is a duplicate. Need more input.

I'll try to find some more info tomarrow... but it is pretty clear they at least had mustard gas. I have limited time though - I'm having to study geology in a big way - a realatively new topic for me.

I wouldn't be surprised. I don't know what this points out other than that syria had not until recently been a part of the Chemical arms trading process, and that Saddam only stopped his WMD stockpiling and marketing when we resorted to physical attacks, at least as far as we know, since we also bombed an aspirin factory.

I have never had a problem with the bombing of such facilities. It is the invasion that I have a problem with - it's an economic boondoggle for this country.

Ah. The sunday herald. Known for its brilliantly unbiased articles. Yes, what could a Scottish based antisemitic tabloid possibly have against a pro Iraq War Britain? Trichlorophenol is a common pesticide, herbicide, anti-mildew chemical, that, like some common fertilizers, can be used as terrorist weapons.

These chemicals are a bit more serious than ammonia nitrate would be, don't you agree? It's the quantity and proportions that are alarming.

Well heck wade. I knew for a fact that saddam had enough stockpiles of WMD as recently as 1998 that he was implicated in selling them on the international market. I also know that the UN has released this report that admits that they have found evidence of Iraq smuggling out large amounts of equipment for the production of WMD delivery systems and possibly chemical weapons centrifuges, before, during and after the beginning of the Iraq war. And yet while its admission could have halted the US bid to go to war, Iraq never released any physical proof that they had disposed of these weapons.

It's pretty hard to prove you don't have something - virtually impossible in a country the size of Iraq.

Sorry you took my post as focused at you nbdysfu, it was not, it was a reply to the general sentiments of this thread.

Wade.

 

[Annie]

Wade, don't think I said they were Iraq's either, which is what you are claiming-go look, I'll wait.

Ok, bottom line, it's possible. That was all either NATO or I were 'IMPLYING'.

btw, good luck with the Geology studies. I just finished my paper for master's program. Deciding if it's worth going to sleep now or should skip it...

 

[nbdysfu]

I was refering to NATO and Kathianne's posts.

Ok. My Bad. Use Quotes, or names at least.

I'll try to find some more info tomarrow... but it is pretty clear they at least had mustard gas. I have limited time though - I'm having to study geology in a big way - a realatively new topic for me.

I don't doubt that they had mustard gas at some point. I just wonder what their capabilities are in terms of producing chemical weapons themselves.

I have never had a problem with the bombing of such facilities. It is the invasion that I have a problem with - it's an economic boondoggle for this country.

I have always had a problem with the bomb and run approach, for moral and forensic reasons, and sanctions for economic reasons.

These chemicals are a bit more serious than ammonia nitrate would be, don't you agree? It's the quantity and proportions that are alarming.

So were you around when we were arguing over A+B?

It's pretty hard to prove you don't have something - virtually impossible in a country the size of Iraq.

Saddam had a known quantity of WMD that he was required to destroy and record the destruction of to pass off to inspectors. He claimed he destroyed everything but refused to show evidence we requested pre-destruction. Now evidence is coming forward that he sold off WMD materiel for scrap and who knows what else.

Sorry you took my post as focused at you nbdysfu, it was not, it was a reply to the general sentiments of this thread.

Wade.

Sorry. I was jumping to conclusions. Gotta keep it real. Good luck on your studies. I been there. :halo: done that :dev1:

 

[wade]

Wade, don't think I said they were Iraq's either, which is what you are claiming-go look, I'll wait.

Ok, bottom line, it's possible. That was all either NATO or I were 'IMPLYING'.

btw, good luck with the Geology studies. I just finished my paper for master's program. Deciding if it's worth going to sleep now or should skip it...

Yes I was reading between the lines a bit on your post

Wow, again! Now, we should be able to figure out where they got the weapons from. Any wild guesses?

- did I mis-read the intent?


Masters program in what?

Someday I'm going to go back to school and get a masters or doctorate in at least one field. But I have generally found that school tends to run behind too far to satisfy me. Why go to school to study what you were getting paid to do 3-5 years ago? I'd much rather work with people who have spent 10+ years getting a Phd than spend 10+ years getting my own. But someday I'll want to teach and for that I'll need a higher degree. I almost got a honorary doctorate through Duke - but Olympus pulled our funding (and everyone elses too) about one year too early

I don't need degree level knowedge of Geology at this point. I just need to understand the terminolgy and techniques well enough to learn in the field from the experts I will be working with. I've always found that the best way to learn, at least for me. The key is that for about the first year I'll need to keep my mouth shut and my ears and mind open - not always easy to do!

Wade.

 

[Annie]

Yes I was reading between the lines a bit on your post



- did I mis-read the intent?


Masters program in what?

Someday I'm going to go back to school and get a masters or doctorate in at least one field. But I have generally found that school tends to run behind too far to satisfy me. Why go to school to study what you were getting paid to do 3-5 years ago? I'd much rather work with people who have spent 10+ years getting a Phd than spend 10+ years getting my own. But someday I'll want to teach and for that I'll need a higher degree. I almost got a honorary doctorate through Duke - but Olympus pulled our funding (and everyone elses too) about one year too early

Wade.

I think you took a leap too far. The 'possibility' is there, not the reality, yet.

MS in Education Administration. I'm already teaching. Would rather be working on history or political science, but getting this for 1/3 cost, school picking up the rest. They like me! (go figure)

 

[wade]

I have always had a problem with the bomb and run approach, for moral and forensic reasons, and sanctions for economic reasons.

Well, in terms of loss of life this is the best choice. And in terms of expense, it is by far the best choice. The key is it has to be done against the right targets, and it has to be done decisively to deter the target from simply trying again.

Good luck on your studies. I been there. :halo: done that :dev1:

Thanks!

It seems to me I have to study a new field about every 3-4 years. I think learning is a never-ending process.

Wade.

 

[wade]

MS in Education Administration. I'm already teaching. Would rather be working on history or political science, but getting this for 1/3 cost, school picking up the rest. They like me! (go figure)

I have several friends who are teachers, and one who is a JHS principal (he used to play keyboards in my college band). It seems to be a field that burns a lot of people out and they spend the last half of their career unenthused. I hope you can avoid this fate!

Wade.

 

[Annie]

I have several friends who are teachers, and one who is a JHS principal (he used to play keyboards in my college band). It seems to be a field that burns a lot of people out and they spend the last half of their career unenthused. I hope you can avoid this fate!

Wade.

So far, not a problem. I think burn out comes when you try to do the same thing over and over again. I definately have laundry burn out. :scratch:

I've only been teaching 6 years. Way back when, I earned political science and sociology degrees. Decided to teach, so had to pick up history. Last year began the MS program, done 12/95. I've gone for post-grad classes every summer since I graduated from the history program, gratis from various organizations. Best way to go!