Quite simply I do not believe the US, UK and French government’s assertion that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against rebels “multiple times in small quantities”. Why on earth would they do that? The claim that “up to 150 people have died” spread over a number of incidents makes no sense at all. In a civil war when tens of thousands of people have died, where all sides have been guilty of massacres of scores at a time, I cannot conceive of any motive for killing a dozen or so at any one time with the odd chemical shell. It makes no military sense – chemical weapons are designed for use against population centres and massed armies. They are not precision weapons for deployment against small groups.
Why on earth would the Assad regime use a tiny amount of chemical weapons against tiny groups of rebels, knowing the West would use it as an excuse to start bombing? It makes no sense whatsoever. Cui bono?
The Russians have described the evidence as fabricated, and on this one I am with the Russians.
It is of course no coincidence that this humanitarian motive to start bombing Syria arises just as the tide of war turned against the rebels, and the government forces are about to move on Aleppo. I suspect now we will see massive NATO force intervention, with huge air to ground destruction of the government forces all over the country to “defend” Aleppo, just as we saw hundreds of thousands killed and whole cities destroyed in Libya to “defend” Benghazi. Whose people showed their gratitude by murdering the US Ambassador.
It is a further fascinating coincidence that this coordinated western switch of policy happens immediately after the Bilderberg conference. An analysis of which of the corporate interests there stand to gain in Syria might be a fascinating exercise.
There were two main reasons the tide of war turned against the rebels. Firstly, Hizbollah’s decision to enter the war on a large scale was provoked by the Israeli Air Force’s massive attack around Damascus, a fact the mainstream media has managed to hide completely. Secondly, at Turkish urging, the rebel forces had diverted much of their energies to attacking the Syrian kurds. This opens the interesting question of what the American client Kurds of Iraq will make of their patron sponsoring the massacre of their brethren in Syria.
Finally, chemical weapons are a terrible thing and their use should be condemned unreservedly. But where was all this Western outrage and activity when the Israelis were pouring down white phosphorous and kicking and maiming thousands of women and children in Gaza?
Are all your questions rhetorical or are you really that clueless?
It’s all very well jumping down people throats when they invoke *the* conspiracy of the age (the Zionist project and it’s total control of finance, media and Western party-political system) but to then play all “dumb ‘n’ shit” is inexcusable.
“Israeli Air Force’s massive attack around Damascus, a fact the mainstream media has managed to hide completely.”
And the reason? Because they used a ‘bunker-buster’ NUKE. Look at youtube videos – that is a nuclear detonation you are seeing. If it was done during the day there would be seen a mushroom cloud that would have left no doubt whatsoever.
Compelling arguments from nuclear scientists, arms experts and geologists.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/10/302772/was-syria-nuked/
Jimstonefreelance.com did have video showing the ‘nuclear attack’ on Syria.
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/rogue2.html
If so this should be verifiable at the scene and could not long be successfully suppressed.
As with Rev. Stephen Sizer, I am not responsible for determining the content, nature, prejudices inherent and veracity of every page, website or link originating from the link above, to the nth degree of depth, readers must make their own judgements.
“I’m sure you would agree that the figures would be more believable if they came from a genuine research group ”
They’re the latest official UN estimates up to the end of April.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/201361351947232184.html
I suspect your man in Coventry is just repeating them and MediaLens doesn’t have any alternative figures.
“If so this should be verifiable at the scene and could not long be successfully suppressed. ”
Yup. So where are the hospitals full of radiation burn victims and why has nobody detected the fall out yet?
Press TV (always an unbiased and reliable source when reporting Israel) seem to be saying that the Americans have provided Israel with weapons too heavy for their air force to deliver.
Re. the ‘nuclear attack’ on Syria. Apparently some experts are convinced it was most probably a “an Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW) or Neutron Bomb”. The info does come via Iran’s version of the BBC, so think of it what you will.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/10/302772/was-syria-nuked/
Kempe,
stop being wilfully ignorant in an attempt to comfort those that are genuinely ignorant.
Low yield nuclear weapons can actually be less powerful than a conventional bomb. As this was a bunker-buster device there will be no ‘fall out’. The pressTV article is fully sourced with real people that you can contact yourself – unlike almost every article that appears in your wonderful world of the ‘free press’.
If you are genuinely ignorant then please accept my sincere condolences and may I suggest you stop commenting on things you know nothing about.
@ Kempe :
“Press TV (always an unbiased and reliable source when reporting Israel) seem to be saying that the Americans have provided Israel with weapons too heavy for their air force to deliver.”
______
Which, when you think about it, would seem to be quite a clever move on the US’ part and perhaps give the lie to claims that it is a mere tail being wagged by the Israeli dog.
So Tech Savage (following Press TV) says it was a “low yield” nuclear weapon “with no fall-out”, whereas CameronB (also following Press TV) informs that it might have been an Enhanced Radiation Weapon (which to my untrained ear sounds like high fall-out)
These sound like complete opposites. Are they?
***********
La vita è bella, life is good!
Whatever unprecedented weaponry the Israelis used in their illegal attack on Syria, it might account for the huge recent spike in deaths, estimated by some now at 90,000, in the conflict between unsavoury zionist tool mercenary gangs and Syria’s armed forces. Gilad Atzmon reckons the Israeli air raids on Syria, including whatever WMD were used on the capital Damascus, were counter-productive.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/syria-israel-is-losing-the-battle.html#entry33862923
“It doesn’t take a genius to predict that an Israeli attack on an Arab land cannot be accepted by the Arab masses, not even by Assad’s bitterest Arab opponents.”
In an article in the rather right-wing US ‘Veteran’s News Now’, back in April, Atzmon writes:
“In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.” http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/04/16/223201-how-zionists-manage-to-get-away-with-their-myths-and-lies/
And finally … in a break from all that high-tech weaponry, organ-trafficing, controlled opposition and other nasty stuff, some light relief –70-yr old Charles Saatchi, Mrs Thatcher’s darling spin-meister, trys strangling his beard-less trophy-wife Nigella Lawson in a busy up-market London restaurant, before shocked onlookers, one of whom caught this terror attack on camera. It is unknown if sweeping GCHQ/NSA intercepts could have learned of this dastardly plot in advance and nipped it in the bud, under existing powers and budgets.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/jewish-humanist-charles-saatchi-in-action.html
E.R.W = Neutron bomb
Apologies for the length of this post, but I came across this description of what a neutron bomb is, at the PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums.
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/How-does-a-neutron-bomb-work_12207.html
It appears that neutron bombs have comparable kinetic energy and blast zones to more ‘conventional’ nuclear weapons, but produce more fall-out, in the form of neutrons released. However, we are not talking about a mid-air detonation here, but possibly a ground penetrating weapon. As such, the release of neutrons or ‘fall-out’ might not be expected to contaminate a large area above ground.
My gut feeling is that it was a ‘bunker busting’ neutron bomb, but that I will not live to see the truth revealed (I am 45 years old).
——————————————————————–
carbonlife
24th January 2007 – 09:50 PM
A neutron bomb is merely a mini-H bomb rigged to enhance the neutron output.
Neutrons are heavy uncharged particles, which means they can pass through thick armor or lead rather easily, unlike gamma rays.
Neutrons are selectively absorbed by light elements such as carbon which form living matter, whereas other forms of thermonuclear radiation ( alpha, beta, gamma ) are selectively absorbed by heavy elements.
Many years ago, one of the popular science magazines published a picture taken with a neutron camera, of a brass candelabra with candles, sitting inside a lead-brick enclosure. The neutrons went right through the lead and brass, which looked ghostly on the pictures — but the neutrons were selectively absorbed by the organic material in the candle wax, which looked dense on the neutron photo.
In other words, energetic neutrons can pass through lead and brass without losing much energy or momentum. Having passed through the lead [or armor] unimpeded, the neutrons then expend their momentum and energy when they hit something organic, such as beeswax or human tissue, knocking loose electrons, ripping up molecular bonds, and basically disrupting the life-chemistry of anything living. When a neutron strikes an atom of a light element, the result is a shower of secondary ionizing radiation, which causes damage just like any other radiation.
Neutrons also have a nasty habit of traveling through the ground and reflect off the water table and off bedrock, killing anyone in an underground bunker. Other types of radiation ( alpha, beta and gamma ) don’t have that capability. The tendency of neutrons to go right through armor and bounce around corners makes them attractive as bunker-busters, because modern bunker systems have blast doors at intervals, and dog-leg passages that can run for miles underground.
Unfortunately, bunker systems tend to be built under large civilian cities — Saddam’s bunker network was built under Baghdad ( pop. 7 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad ). If the US had had bunker-busting neutron bombs at the time they invaded Baghdad based on fabricated information about WMD, taking out the bunkers could have killed millions of Iraqi civilians through neutron flash and seismic shocks.
A neutron bomb does NOT ( as commonly mis-reported ) kill people and leave structures intact. A neutron bomb is a mini-hydrogen bomb; and produces all of the usual destructive effects of an H-bomb ( heat flash, gamma radiation flash, supersonic blast wave, over-pressure wave at greater distances, and radioactive fallout plume reaching high altitudes ). A neutron bomb actually produces MORE radioactive fallout than a ‘regular’ tactical-H-bomb of the same yield, because most of the radioactive fallout of a ‘regular’ mini-H-bomb comes from neutrons that induce persistent radioactivity in pulverized material.
A neutron bomb simply has ‘enhanced kill’ of living tissue hiding inside armor or inside bunkers or behind berms. The enhanced kill comes about because a higher percentage of the bomb’s energy comes out as energetic neutrons, whereas in a ‘normal’ H-bomb more of the energy would come out as blast / heat / X-rays and whatnot. A normal H-bomb is surrounded by metals that reflect neutrons back into the bomb, to increase the yield. A neutron bomb is built without the neutron reflectors, so that the neutrons can get out. That would normally cause a lower yield, but extra tritium is added to bring the yield back up to par.
When a ‘normal’ tactical H-bomb goes off in mid-air ( “air burst” ), most of the energy gets absorbed by air within a half-mile radius of the detonation, turning that air into a “fireball” of extremely hot plasma. That fireball then does 2 things — it emits a powerful flash of radiant energy all the way from the infrared to the X-ray region of the spectrum, and (cool.gif the fireball begins expanding at supersonic velocity, pushing aside millions of tons of air in the process. The displaced compacted air then flattens anything in its path. After a brief interval the fireball goes dark, because the scorched air within the fireball forms brown oxides of nitrogen. Displaced air then rushes back in, sweeping up pulverized material and ash into the fireball, which rises rapidly to the stratosphere and cooks a wider area with its heat and radiation as it rises.
The surplus of energetic neutrons emitted by a neutron bomb pass right through the forming fireball and keep going until they hit something solid made of light elements, such as people cowering behind a hardened wall.
Again, a neutron bomb is a matter of degree. All thermonuclear reactions produce neutrons, whether the reaction is fission ( A-bomb ) or fusion ( H bomb ). The tritium which ‘powers’ the H-bomb consists simply of heavy hydrogen which has 2 extra neutrons on every atom. That’s necessary because an H-bomb turns hydrogen into helium. It takes 2 neutrons to make a helium atom, but a normal hydrogen atom has none, so heavy hydrogen is used to supply the required neutrons. Some of those extra neutrons get loose as neutron radiation. A neutron bomb is simply designed to let more neutrons out.
A neutron bomb can also kill electronics more effectively at short range, because some of the neutrons are stopped by silicon in the chips, which is a somewhat light element. It doesn’t take much radiation damage to kill a chip, because silicon chips have to be near-perfect crystals in order to function as high-performance semiconductors. Anything that rips up the crystal structure even a little ruins the chip.
It’s a myth that neutron bombs are clean, humane, or environmentally friendly. Their destructive effects are NO LESS than a tactical hydrogen bomb of equivalent yield. It’s also a myth that neutron bombs can kill people in a WMD facility without releasing deadly spores, causing a nuclear meltdown or whatever. A neutron bomb might easily do both, especially if the targeting intel is sketchy or wrong. It takes an extremely high dose of radiation to kill anthrax, compared to what kills humans — a strike near enough to crack open the containment and release the spores might not kill the spores.
A neutron bomb also might not stop someone with their finger on a retaliatory button. A person can receive many times the lethal dose of radiation and soldier on for several hours, until they start vomitting uncontrollably, bleeding internally and whatnot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_sickness
In other words, neutron bombs are not a ‘magic bullet’ to instantly wipe out terrorists who have a vial or a suitcase nuke or whatever. As with any tactical nuke, the radius of total destruction is limited, and the neutron kill radius isn’t much higher. Neutron bombs aren’t fully scalable, because neutrons are absorbed by atmosphere within several miles, regardless of how powerful the bomb is.
Because neutron bombs aren’t a magic bullet and aren’t at all ‘surgical’, they can have extreme political fallout when their use is provoked by disinformation or misdirection. A single neutron bomb could literally make tens of millions of enemies around the world, some of which might have access to a loose nuke or two to retaliate with — making it hard to tell who was behind the loose-nuke attack because the former Soviets misplaced so many. For that reason, increased lethality needs to be matched by increasingly powerful intel, since modern opponents ( particularly Al Qaeda ) are adept at baiting the US into making enemies, using false trails of misinformation matching what the commander-in-chief wants to believe. This will remain a problem no matter who’s the commander in chief or which party they’re from. Congress has no constitutional power to rein in a US president once Congress approves a declaration of war, even if the president decides to use a nuclear weapon in response to an imagined threat. Congress has just signaled that they can only pass non-binding resolutions of opposition to whatever a president might choose to do. Several recent presidents have responded to situations with threats that no options were off the table [including nuclear], without needing approval from Congress to place the world on notice that a president was weighing unilateral use of a nuclear weapon.
None of the above information is classified — it’s all basic physics, because an H-bomb uses the same operating principle as a star. For quite a bit of additional information see the Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
—
“I don’t know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. — Albert Einstein [ a guy who understood chain reactions. ]
“”Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” — Albert Einstein.
The body language here says it all.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/68225000/jpg/_68225654_68225653.jpg
If any nukes were used in Syria then the evidence will be incontrovertible and some explaining to the international community will be required by those who used them. Is any country willing to make use of nukes with the attendant diplomatic problems?
Habbabkuk
you need to ‘subtle up’ a bit mate. you’re a divider.
I did not say it was low-yeild. I was suggesting the possibility, in response to your team-mate, who questioned why there were no hospitals full of radiation victims. Know, not even experts, no exactly what kind of weapons these are just that they can not possibly be H.E.
Are you expecting commentors to have all the goods before commenting? all you need to know is that Israel has twice, according to independent experts, used ‘unconventional’ (aka nuclear) bombs against Syria.
The world should be outraged at this act of war. A gross contravention of international law. Europeans need to wake up, the real threat to us is not Iran, Arabs or some Western proxy army of Jihadists, it’s the Israelis and their illegal arsenal of nuclear weapons, which they now appear to be using against neighbouring, non-nuclear nations.
If you are more concerned about Bashar Al Assad than that little doozey then you are certifiably insane and a clear danger to humanity at large.
“Know, not even experts, no exactly”
No one, not even experts, know exactly
Jemand 18 Jun, 2013 – 7:14 am
Why don’t do you read instead of writing? You simply have no idea mate. I am embarrassed for you. You appear to have acquired your knowledge about nuclear fission weapons (and no doubt everything else) solely from watching Hollywood movies.
I would imagine the easiest way to establish what happened, without gaining access to the site, would be to look at the seismic record of the region. I don’t know how you would get your hands on that sort of data though.
Neutron bombs kill people whilst leaving the infrastructure largely intact, its the preferred weapon of choice to those who want to carry on living with less people on this planet.
If Israel has used an ERW device than this is would result in multiple death within days and weeks from radiation burns, depending on the type, to anybody within 1 km of the blast.
The development of neutron bombs has always been kept low key in the shadow of its multi megatonne hydrogen brothers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
Tech Savage, please lower your dosage of chrystal meth and dial your aggression down from 11 to a more repectable 7 or 8.
The use of highly radioactive nukes will leave undeniable evidence in the bodies of victims and various residual materials in the immediate area. Yes or no?
Given that the Syrian govt would certainly collect evidence of such uses and present it to independent foreign correspondents for widespread reporting, wouldn’t you expect there to be international outrage at the news? How do you propose that there has been no credible reporting on the use of nukes so far?
Furthermore, Israel has a policy of nuclear ambiguity, why would it risk the dubious benefit of that by exposing itself as a rogue nuclear power in a comparatively minor conflict?
I suspect your just having fun with us.
Habbakuk: “Which, when you think about it, would seem to be quite a clever move on the US’ part and perhaps give the lie to claims that it is a mere tail being wagged by the Israeli dog.” – Chomsky also points out, at some length, that US interests will always trump Israeli interests, when the two, as they very occasionally do, collide.
@ Technicolour:
Point registered. Therefore, if some sort of nuclear weapon WAS used, the implication of what you say would be that this would have been in the US interest rather than in the Israeli interest. What, in your opinion, would have been the (prevailing) US interest?
Pardon my interruption, but what better way to test your prohibited weapons, than get one of your allies to test them for you? Especially if they have been ‘soaking’ you for years.
Ah, have no idea about use of nuclear weapons; was responding to the general point. And generally, in this case, why is it not possible that US and Israeli aims are the same ie: destabilisation?
It’s true, btw, that Israel has historically functioned as a weapons tester for the US. But think Jemand’s right here: that a nuclear use wouldn’t go under the radar.
@ Tech Savage :
Your post at 09h36 requires a quick response.
“I did not say it was low-yeild. I was suggesting the possibility, in response to your team-mate, who questioned why there were no hospitals full of radiation victims.”
What you actually said was (emphasis added):
“Low yield nuclear weapons can actually be less powerful than a conventional bomb. As this was a bunker-buster device THERE WILL BE NO ‘FALL-OUT’.”
____
You go on to say (at 09h36) :
“Are you expecting commentors to have all the goods before commenting? all you need to know is that Israel has twice, according to independent experts, used ‘unconventional’ (aka nuclear) bombs against Syria.”
This calls for a couple of comments,, as follows :
1/. The answer to your first question is ‘no’. But I would point out that the fewer ‘goods’ any particular commenter has, the more his ‘comments’ become speculative. Therefore, your sentence would have read better as “Are you expecting commenters to have all the goods before speculating”.
2/. With regard to your second sentence, I’m afraid that that we do in fact need to know more. Firstly, is there conclusive evidence that Israel has already used unconventional aka nuclear bombs against Syria (who are these independent experts/have other experts said the opposite)? Secondly, even if this has been the case, it does not provide proof, per se, that such bombs were used on this occasion.
Feel free to respond.
Technicolour – I agree, there appears to be a joint aim of destabilising the region. TBH, I am none the wiser either re. what actually happened. I wouldn’t be too sure about facts getting out though, particularly so soon after the event. Just look at Mordechai Vanunu.
It’s not very nice to want to strangle Nigella. Understandable, but not nice.
Anyway, before she started this porno food bollocks she’d have fitted in very well on this blog, and Habby would have been trolling her.
Apologies for that @ 12.36pm.
Should be in the “Strangling in a Restaurant” thread.
@ Tech Savage (afterthought) :
“Habbabkuk
you need to ‘subtle up’ a bit mate. you’re a divider.”
___________
A ‘divider’? I prefer to see myself, in terms of this blog, as a…compass for those who have lost their way. 🙂
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)
16 Jun, 2013 – 7:40 pm
“I suppose that some of the regular posters would be happy to see relations with Iran deteriorate rather than (potentially) improve, as an improvement would give them less opportunity to engage in their favourite activity of US-bashing.”
Not very good at logical thinking are you HB.
“I suppose that some regular posters would be happy to see relations with Iran deteriorate rather than (potentially) improve…”
This is merely a supposition and not a valid premise.
Your conclusion:
“…as an improvement would give them less opportunity to engage in their favourite activity of US-bashing.”; is a non-sequitur and so your argument is invalid.
(Vitam mirabilem)