Slashdot Mirror
Syria Completes Destruction of Chemical Weapon Producing Equipment
rtoz writes "Chemical weapons watchdog OPCW has declared that Syria has rendered inoperable chemical weapons production facilities and mixing/filling plants. This operation has been completed just one day before the deadline (1 November 2013) set by the OPCW Executive Council.
The Joint OPCW-UN Mission has inspected 21 of the 23 sites declared by Syria, and 39 of the 41 facilities located at those sites. The two remaining sites were not visited due to safety and security concerns. But Syria declared those sites as abandoned and that the chemical weapons program items they contained were moved to other declared sites, which were inspected."
That's the real question. It's great that can't make any more of the stuff, but I'll bet they have enough to kill just about everyone in the country left hidden.
So is this like North Korea over the years where they declare a nuclear enrichment facility deactivated, but then a month later we hear that facility is back in operation?
Remember when Slashdot used to have articles on circuit boards, programming languages, cool games and hardware?
What's next Ben and Jen's new baby (or whoever the f#ck is the latest tabloid bait)
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
They were bombing anti-aircraft missiles in transit. They were in transit to Hezbollah. As far as I know those facts aren't in dispute.
The brutal dictator is in a state of declared war with Israel. People bomb each other during wars.
The US did destroy about 90% of their stockpile. The remainder which we haven't destroyed are out of commission and at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. Both of which are disposal facilities. We are doing it and have been for decades.
Syria is going to ship their stable stuff to Russia for destruction and if they have unstable / weird stuff everyone is going to have to figure out what to do.
23 sites with 41 facilities. Each site has at least 1 facility, some sites have 2 or more.
On 2 of these sites a total of 2 of the facilities have not been tested.
So it's not 4, it's still just 2.
2 facilities, one each in 2 sites.
Wow, playing the antisemite card to deflect any attention from Israel's actions. Has this been done before? Now, if you can move past your wolf-crying shitweaselry, why should Israel get away with it's confirmed use of chemical weapons - the dumping of phosphorous on Gaza in Cast Lead - after threatening to bomb Syria for it's alleged chemical weapons use?
Just how long do right wing Israelis get to get away with what they accuse others of doing, anyway?
Your facts have no impact on the "waahh..the US sucks" faction here.
When has Israel ever used WMDs? Plain fact about the Middle East - if the Arabs disarm, peace would still exist, and they would still exist. If Israel disarms, they'd cease to exist. Just look @ Lebanon - most Christians are fleeing, or have fled. Same story as in Iraq, and now Syria.
Given that you have Muslim Brotherhood types now running Egypt and possibly Syria, Israel would be reckless if they didn't have nukes.
Yes. We started with the massive quantity stuff and then had to go to the more specialized stuff. From what I understand the easy stuff we could just heat up 2100F and it was ruined. The harder stuff you have to carefully add neutralizing chemicals to which makes it into only standard toxic waste. Figuring out the right process + mixture + manufacturing the chemicals +.... is about $.5b / year job. It is more like the 80/20 rule the last 20% is more difficult than the first 80% several times over.
Both sides are engaging in war crimes against civilian population, though rebels are more prone to specifically targeting groups based on their background (mostly religious, but then there are also Kurds), which is closer to the actual definition of genocide; the regime, on the other hand, just targets all political opposition.
So what's your suggestion on fixing it? With both sides having blood on their hands, the only way Syria could have something resembling peace right now is if an international coalition just took over and directly managed the country under a UN mandate or something along those lines, until reconciliation between various factions is possible and a local government that can actually stay in control can be established and stand on its own. This would probably take decades (a single decade in Afghanistan was not enough). Are the Western countries ready to foot the bill for such an operation, both with money and with the lives of their people (not just soldiers - you'll also need people to rebuild the infrastructure, teachers etc, and all those will be targeted by the local insurgents)? Can it handle the accusations of imperialism that such an intervention will undeniably provoke?
Israel doesn't want peace. It wants land, specifically the primary territory from some kingdom they had 3,000 years ago. That's why Zionist terrorists engaged in bombings and assassinations and the odd massacre before 1950. After 1950, they engaged in false flag operations and finally enacted their own Manifest Destiny when they started the 1967 War with a sneak attack on Egypt. If Israel gave a shit about peace, it would go back to the Green Line, not announce 1500 new settlements a quarter on the land they are illegally occupying. Peace would have gotten in the way of all of that.
Now, this is the point where some Zionist will come in and cry wolf again, or try to drag this down into whattaboutery, so here's a preemptive piss off. The roots of this conflict are based on 1) tiny minority of the population bringing in settlers on land stolen from the native population and 2) Israel's land grabbing in the 1967 War, which they started by attacking Egypt's Air Force. And there's no counter-argument that isn't self-defeating. Case in point: if Israel was justified in starting the 1967 war because of a blockade of a shipping route, then every Qassam rocket in response to the total blockade of Gaza is justified.
Bold statements... wants land? Oh... you mean the land they conquered just like every goddamn nation out there before the 20th century? Get back to me after a history lesson... or 20. War is war, and if the didn't want to give it up they shouldn't have conspired to attack on all fronts. I've no sympathy for them now that history showed them to be the losers. Their loss was well deserved.
The bombing was a criminal act. You must have missed the heading that reads "aftermath." not too surprising.
Assassination is strickly anti-zionist. Any group that claims to be zionist and assasinates is by their very nature invalidated. As far as politics go, again, this is another criminal act. But don't let that deter your delusions!
Another link to another condemned act... I think I smell a pattern batman!
While the latter is a genuine fuckup. We are at 1/4 so far. You've finally found some merit for speaking!
But then you go into some rhetoric about "stolen land" from some "native population". There, right there, I have to ask, are you high? Stolen from *whom*? What exactly do you know of palestine before brittish rule? The ottoman empire before it? Hint... nomads do not own land by definition. Nor did they claim it UNTIL Israel formed, surprise surprise, someone wanted the jews out again.
On behalf of all of zion I am truly sorry that your rosy version of history is complete and utter bullshit. I am truly sorry that you've been conditioned to hate hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of innocent people over the actions of a literal handful of people, often provoked under threat of genocide, yet still condemend for their actions.
By the way... where are your precious links that describe atrocities done to Israel? Couldn't be bothered? I wonder why...