the fact that Syria received much of their chemical weapons from Egypt, who in turn received various levels of support, in the form of both materials and technical knowledge, from US AND British Interests, including the US military. By no means does this limit involvement to the US and Britain--many other players are involved.
First off, let me thank you for posting that link. I may find it quite useful in the future since so many people get things wrong that it addresses. You, for example. You think the US is responsible for the Arab nations getting chemical weapons? Let's see what your link says.
Egypt was the first Arab state to acquire an offensive chemical capability, and at a rather early stage. According to Cordesman, by the late 1950s Egypt already possessed CW, whereas Schumayer noted unequivocally that the Soviets supplied Egypt with defensive equipment as well as with CW, in the early 1960s.1... In 1963, the Egyptian Air Force first used chemical warfare agents in Yemen
Egypt helped Syria get chemical weapons.
Considering the nature of the data gathered by Egypt, it can be assumed that the nerve agent first developed was sarin (which Egypt indeed supplied to the Syrians in 1972 – see below).... Prior to the Yom Kippur War, the strategic cooperation between Egypt and Syria expanded into the chemical arena. Syria did not, at that point in time, have a CW capability, and at first Egypt passed on to its ally its technical knowhow, supplying Syria with small quantities of CW for research purposes.18 At a later stage, it was agreed that CW would be supplied by Egypt to Syria for a sum of 6 million dollars.19 This was to provide the Syrians with a strategic offensive weapon of the first order, should they require it. Such an agreement between two Arab states was unprecedented. The inventory with which Egypt supplied Syria in 1972 most probably came as an essential part of the two countries’ joint reorganization plan that was carried out by both prior to mounting the surprise attack on Israel. The CW that Egypt shipped to Syria included a lethal non-persistent agent (sarin)20 and a persistent blistering agent (mustard)21, installed in tactical (artillery)22 and strategic (aerial)23 ammunition. It is therefore clear that by that period (1972) Egypt had already accumulated an operational arsenal of these types of chemical agents and munitions.
Egypt helped Iraq get chemical weapons:
Apparently, during 1976, the Egyptian army deployed some of its nerve gas arsenal, believing that the most appropriate use of nerve gas would be against Israeli towns.29 In any event, following the Yom Kippur War, Egypt persistently continued to develop chemical warfare agents and to manufacture launching systems for them.30 The signing of the 1978 peace agreement between Egypt and Israel left Syria, Egypt’s ally and partner in the 1967 defeat and the Yom Kippur War, feeling abandoned and bitter. However, gradually, from the late 1970s onwards, Egypt began to cooperate with Iraq. Iraq offered Egypt considerable financial support for increasing Egypt’s output of chemical warfare agents and for the production of chemical munitions. Iraq hoped to reap some of the rewards.31 Thu
You are only doing people a service when you get it right, which you aren't. Time for another correction....
FACT: Bush publicly declared that he wanted Al Qada to hand over Bin Laden immediately.
Correction: Bush told the Taliban that he wanted Bin Laden handed over immediately.
FACT: Al Qada leaders (Religious and Military) stated that if Bush could present them facts showing Bin Laden's guilt in terrorist activity, they would hand him over immediately.
Correction: No, they didn't. The Taliban said different things at different times, but not what you said.
In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country". The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US. Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over". -- Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
One thing that is left out here is that the US has previously tried to extradite Bin Laden from Afghanistan over the African embassy bombings. The US indicted Bin Laden and discussed the evidence with the Taliban. They didn't hand over Bin Laden then, there is no reason to believe they would after 9/11. The Taliban were not sincere in their offer. There is no way they could have handed over Bin Laden. Al Qaida was integrated into their government and military and the Taliban depended on them. It would have violated their tribal based norms, and torn the government apart. Interesting that you seem to trust the Taliban on this point though.
FACT: Bush denied the request for proof and invaded Afghanistan.
Correction: I think we just covered this. The Taliban refused the US demand when they already knew that Bin Laden must have been involved. Because they refused the demand, and harbored a terrorist mass murderer, they chose war.
So, you didn't really get the "facts" right, and left out major, important details.
I don't see much in the way of similarity between the current situation and the US demands to the Afghan government after 9/11 other than they both involve countries half a world away.
A couple of problems with your scenarios. Iran has provided tens of thousands of rockets to terrorist groups that aim them at Israel. Those same groups have the goal of destroying Israel. Iran has been making barely veiled, and occasionally open, threats about destroying Israel. It is to the point that the Secretary General of the UN went to Iran and rebuked them. Iran and Israel used to be allies before the Islamic revolution. After that the new Iranian government declared Israel an enemy without Israel doing anything to deserve it other than existing. Iran has been a sponsor of terrorism world wide. Most countries in the Gulf region are afraid of Iran and its threats against them. That is why they seek Western allies like the US, and are buying weapons heavily. Iran has also threatened to cut off the oil supplies to Europe in the winter to freeze Europeans to death. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, and they are working on them, it will only make a bad situation worse. It won't prevent them from being attacked if they threaten peace and the world's oil supply. Even now the Iranians have fighters and supplies helping to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. You should study the situation more since your understanding of it is at best incomplete. The Iranian government is not truly interested in peace.
Attacking terrorists that are fighting against the US and Afghan governments isn't terrorism. The terrorists can thank Bin Laden's leadership for their predicament since he declared war on the US on their behalf. They then proceeded to attack the US for years, killing many hundreds and wounding thousands, before the US really got serious about fighting back.
Apparently written by someone that has never really looked into politics in the US. The US has a full political spectrum, including communists* and socialists just like Europe. The thing is that most Americans won't vote for communists if they understand that is who is running for office.
Funny that you quote the CFR as a source of reliable information regarding foreign policy.
The question of whether or not Iran engages in terrorism is a question of fact, not of foreign policy. It is well established that Iran engages in terrorism, both directly and indirectly.
You should note that is only possible if the Iranian government gives in to its general inclination towards terrorism and hatred of the United States. (Talk about low hanging fruit.)
That's the great thing about having big stockpiles of chemical weapons - there are plenty to go around, capture, and use. But do keep in mind that the Syrian government has a bit more practice and training for this sort of thing.
The positive tests for sarin were completed this week and made on clothes and soil taken from the site of the attack in Ghouta, eastern Damascus on 21 August. The tests were carried out in the past seven days by British scientists at the Porton Down facility, and will be deployed by Cameron in a fresh attempt to persuade the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to do more to force the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to the negotiating table.
The samples brought to the UK from the Syrian borders are different to the hair and blood samples tested in the US. Details of those test results were released by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, four days ago.
I guess we can always count on you to sympathize with people that think the US should be attacked, and Americans killed, because you're such a super "patriot," or something.
By the way, I've got a question for you. I don't think that the collapse of the World Trade Center from the 9/11 attacks in New York, crushing thousands of people to death, resulted in the "Tree of Liberty" growing any stronger from the blood shed. Do you? Do you think they were just not "patriotic enough" to make a difference? Is there any point where you think too much American blood can be shed in slaughter instead of battle? Or is every American killed at work or shopping by terrorists another tick mark toward "liberty" to you - the more Americans murdered the "freer" you feel?
One of the hazards of the news business is that occasionally you end up reporting unpleasant or disagreeable news like this. Even "rainbows and puppies" papers like USA today are carrying the story.
Do you prefer the news, or rainbows, puppies, and unicorns?
Sire, once he is clear, shall the raise the shields?.... What about the drawbridge? Oh, and the oil... shall I put the fire out? Or were we expecting more company?
The "stand your ground" law never entered into the Martin-Zimmerman situation on the street, or in the courtroom as a matter of law. You seem to be fixated by the idea of it despite the fact it is irrelevant. You may want to consider counseling if you can't stop thinking about it. The thoughts you are expressing don't really seem appropriate.
.... don't like it when their blacks get all uppity.
I don't think Trayvon was "George Zimmerman's black."
uppity [úppitee] adj presumptuous: behaving in a way that is considered presumptuous and more suited to somebody belonging a higher social class or position (informal)
Hmmm, I don't see physical assault as part of the definition of "uppity." And the only time Trayvon was in a "higher position" was when he was on top of Zimmerman, beating his head into the ground, so that doesn't really work. You must not be using that right. Maybe because you are trying to be incendiary?
11 AUGUST 1988 Al-Qaeda is formed at a meeting attended by Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Dr Fadl in Peshawar, Pakistan. The creation of the group brings together extraordinary Saudi wealth, the expertise of a lifetime Egyptian militant, and a philosophical foundation for jihad from a Cairo intellectual
That isn't much time for the US to fund and develop al Qaida, is it? That's because it didn't happen.
The US did supply funds for the native Afghan resistance. The Taliban didn't form until after the Soviets left Afghanistan and the country was in civil war. Turning Afghanistan into the "Soviet's Vietnam" - turnabout being fair play - didn't require the Taliban, which didn't exist yet, or Al Qaida.
The actual reason you find it "impossible" to debate me is that unlike many here I'm actually reasonably well acquainted with the facts in certain areas and not taken in by the nonsense you hurl, at times, instead of facts.
"...leave the thinking to those with the proper equipment?" Pro Tip: The proper equipment for thinking isn't below the waist, either front or back. There are times when certain topics are being discussed it seems that one is what you know, and the other is the source of your "facts."
Now, just so I don't have to end this on that note.... for whatever it is worth to you, I voted up this story that you submitted. I thought it was an interesting submission, and I've been meaning to tell you that. It was an interesting read. I thought you should have tried submitting it again.
Before directly answering your question I will point out that the allegations of Saudi involvement for Sarin based on the presented "evidence" is nonsense. As to your question....
Yes, pretty much - the Saudis couldn't "do" what Aum Shinrikyo did. They are two different types of events. The attack in Tokyo was a terrorist attack with hand-carried home-brew sarin (made by a group with over $1,000,000,000 in assets) used to attack people in a highly enclosed space (about the best possible environment for the success of their attack) and it only managed to kill 13 people*. That isn't very effective. The attack in Syria killed over 1,400 people in the open, and was delivered by artillery rockets, not by plastic bag. Killing people in those circumstances is much more difficult. The success of the Syrian attack points to much more sarin used in the attack, higher purity in the sarin used, which means much more sophisticated chemical agent processing, deliberate development of chemical agent rocket artillery warheads, and proper planning and weapons handling needed to build a lethal dose of the nerve gas chemical agent on the target under the specific weather conditions. All of those activities would potentially be detectable to intelligence operations, but there don't seem to be any indications of that regarding the Saudis and rebels. A shipment of chemical weapons is almost certainly going to be handled differently than ordinary high explosives, and will probably be detectable by intelligence operations, something which I haven't heard any indication of regarding the Saudis and rebels.
There do seem to be indications of the Assad regime handling such weapons though.
Highly effective chemical agent rocket warheads aren't something that are just tossed off the assembly line for plastic water bottles on alternate weeks. They are a highly specialized weapon with many highly specialized components. The Saudis have signed the treated banning them, and I thought it was common wisdom by many on Slashdot that every country on earth followed treaties without cheating except for the US. How could the Saudi's cheat?
* Al Qaida had planned attacks on the New York subway system but called them off because they weren't certain that they would kill enough people to maintain their reputation.
There appears to be much evidence that it was in fact the rebels that used the chemical weapons which were supplied by the Saudis,
There appears to be a lot of false evidence and fabrications, that's for sure. The allegation is that the chemical agent used is the nerve gas called Sarin.
Sarin is not a dual purpose industrial gas that can be used as a chemical weapon, it is a pure chemical weapon. Saudi Arabia isn't known to have Sarin, and they have signed the treaties against it. Sarin is extremely deadly and not really a substance for haphazard manufacture or haphazard loading into munitions. If the allegation is that the Saudi's are supplying Sarin, the question is: "Where did they get it?" From Saddam? He used to have it, but I think we can agree that one is right out. Iran? No, Iran is fighting on the other side. So where did it come from?
I think that any claim that the Saudis supplied the Syrian rebels with Sarin gas weapons is a fabrication.
Bin Laden attacked the United States in large part because it is not a Muslim country governed by Sharia law. Those were his two big demands after 9/11: convert to Islam, and replace the Constitution with Sharia law.
Saddly it is the same old story from you - anyone attacking the US is justified, the US is always wrong to defend itself. You don't even acknowledge the blame game that many "leaders" in the Middle East play - all the corruption committed by Palestinian leaders is America's fault, all the deaths that result are their fault too. Saddam steals food and medicine money - America's fault. Arafat steals investment money - America's fault. The Mullahs mismanage the economy - America's fault.
Somehow you never seem to take note of al Qaida's goal to take over every country and install an Islamist government with Sharia law. Why is it that?
And by the way, the US doesn't have to wait for some Muslim group to start bombing buildings and indiscriminately killing thousands, including children in the US. It was called 9/11, to which you can add the Embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, and others.
Ultimately they are pissed off because they don't rule the world yet as they think Allah promised. Instead they see their civilization being left behind by the world and they want the glory days of Islamic conquest and rule back. I guess you see no problems with that, only with the US.
BTW, are you a consistent fellow who thinks we should abandon all public health and safety measures, since life's a risk and we're all going to die anyway?
Well, that sheds a little light into your... thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
So, it's no change then. You didn't listen before, you don't listen now, and you think the US government is the terrorist.
Hold that thought for about 30 years.
the fact that Syria received much of their chemical weapons from Egypt, who in turn received various levels of support, in the form of both materials and technical knowledge, from US AND British Interests, including the US military. By no means does this limit involvement to the US and Britain--many other players are involved.
First off, let me thank you for posting that link. I may find it quite useful in the future since so many people get things wrong that it addresses. You, for example. You think the US is responsible for the Arab nations getting chemical weapons? Let's see what your link says.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M2BQfifHFuwJ:http://www.acpr.org.il/pp/pp046-shohame.pdf%2BThe+Evolution+of+Chemical+and+Biological+Weapons+in+Egypt&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&gbv=1&filter=0&hl=en&ct=clnk
The Soviet Union gave chemical weapons to Egypt:
Egypt was the first Arab state to acquire an offensive chemical capability, and at a rather early stage. According to Cordesman, by the late 1950s Egypt already possessed CW, whereas Schumayer noted unequivocally that the Soviets supplied Egypt with defensive equipment as well as with CW, in the early 1960s.1 ... In 1963, the Egyptian Air Force first used chemical warfare agents in Yemen
Egypt helped Syria get chemical weapons.
Considering the nature of the data gathered by Egypt, it can be assumed that the nerve agent first developed was sarin (which Egypt indeed supplied to the Syrians in 1972 – see below). ... Prior to the Yom Kippur War, the strategic cooperation between Egypt and Syria expanded into the chemical arena. Syria did not, at that point in time, have a CW capability, and at first Egypt passed on to its ally its technical knowhow, supplying Syria with small quantities of CW for research purposes.18 At a later stage, it was agreed that CW would be supplied by Egypt to Syria for a sum of 6 million dollars.19 This was to provide the Syrians with a strategic offensive weapon of the first order, should they require it. Such an agreement between two Arab states was unprecedented. The inventory with which Egypt supplied Syria in 1972 most probably came as an essential part of the two countries’ joint reorganization plan that was carried out by both prior to mounting the surprise attack on Israel. The CW that Egypt shipped to Syria included a lethal non-persistent agent (sarin)20 and a persistent blistering agent (mustard)21, installed in tactical (artillery)22 and strategic (aerial)23 ammunition. It is therefore clear that by that period (1972) Egypt had already accumulated an operational arsenal of these types of chemical agents and munitions.
Egypt helped Iraq get chemical weapons:
Apparently, during 1976, the Egyptian army deployed some of its nerve gas arsenal, believing that the most appropriate use of nerve gas would be against Israeli towns.29 In any event, following the Yom Kippur War, Egypt persistently continued to develop chemical warfare agents and to manufacture launching systems for them.30 The signing of the 1978 peace agreement between Egypt and Israel left Syria, Egypt’s ally and partner in the 1967 defeat and the Yom Kippur War, feeling abandoned and bitter. However, gradually, from the late 1970s onwards, Egypt began to cooperate with Iraq. Iraq offered Egypt considerable financial support for increasing Egypt’s output of chemical warfare agents and for the production of chemical munitions. Iraq hoped to reap some of the rewards.31 Thu
You are only doing people a service when you get it right, which you aren't. Time for another correction....
FACT: Bush publicly declared that he wanted Al Qada to hand over Bin Laden immediately.
Correction: Bush told the Taliban that he wanted Bin Laden handed over immediately.
FACT: Al Qada leaders (Religious and Military) stated that if Bush could present them facts showing Bin Laden's guilt in terrorist activity, they would hand him over immediately.
Correction: No, they didn't. The Taliban said different things at different times, but not what you said.
In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country". The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US. Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over". -- Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
One thing that is left out here is that the US has previously tried to extradite Bin Laden from Afghanistan over the African embassy bombings. The US indicted Bin Laden and discussed the evidence with the Taliban. They didn't hand over Bin Laden then, there is no reason to believe they would after 9/11. The Taliban were not sincere in their offer. There is no way they could have handed over Bin Laden. Al Qaida was integrated into their government and military and the Taliban depended on them. It would have violated their tribal based norms, and torn the government apart. Interesting that you seem to trust the Taliban on this point though.
FACT: Bush denied the request for proof and invaded Afghanistan.
Correction: I think we just covered this. The Taliban refused the US demand when they already knew that Bin Laden must have been involved. Because they refused the demand, and harbored a terrorist mass murderer, they chose war.
So, you didn't really get the "facts" right, and left out major, important details.
I don't see much in the way of similarity between the current situation and the US demands to the Afghan government after 9/11 other than they both involve countries half a world away.
You may be suffering from NSA story fatigue, especially if you believe I am the only one that submits them. (I'm not.)
Here is a nice selection of non-NSA/Snowden/CIA/Greenward-Miranda stories I've submitted recently for you to enjoy. Have fun!
Monster Storm Reveals Water On Saturn
Open-Source Python Code Shows Lowest Defect Density
First US Inpatient Treatment Program For Internet Addiction Opening In September
Huge Canyon Discovered Under Greenland Ice
Using Pulsars As GPS For Starships
China Plans To Stop Harvesting Organs From Executed Prisoners
Google Outage: Internet Traffic Plunges 40%
PS - In the interest of saving time I will preemptively state that I am not a NASA/commercial space/science/science fiction shill either.
A couple of problems with your scenarios. Iran has provided tens of thousands of rockets to terrorist groups that aim them at Israel. Those same groups have the goal of destroying Israel. Iran has been making barely veiled, and occasionally open, threats about destroying Israel. It is to the point that the Secretary General of the UN went to Iran and rebuked them. Iran and Israel used to be allies before the Islamic revolution. After that the new Iranian government declared Israel an enemy without Israel doing anything to deserve it other than existing. Iran has been a sponsor of terrorism world wide. Most countries in the Gulf region are afraid of Iran and its threats against them. That is why they seek Western allies like the US, and are buying weapons heavily. Iran has also threatened to cut off the oil supplies to Europe in the winter to freeze Europeans to death. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, and they are working on them, it will only make a bad situation worse. It won't prevent them from being attacked if they threaten peace and the world's oil supply. Even now the Iranians have fighters and supplies helping to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. You should study the situation more since your understanding of it is at best incomplete. The Iranian government is not truly interested in peace.
You should have listened to the alert.
How about Sunshine, Lollipops And Rainbows?
Attacking terrorists that are fighting against the US and Afghan governments isn't terrorism. The terrorists can thank Bin Laden's leadership for their predicament since he declared war on the US on their behalf. They then proceeded to attack the US for years, killing many hundreds and wounding thousands, before the US really got serious about fighting back.
Bin Laden's Fatwa
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
Apparently written by someone that has never really looked into politics in the US. The US has a full political spectrum, including communists* and socialists just like Europe. The thing is that most Americans won't vote for communists if they understand that is who is running for office.
SEIU drops mask, goes full commie
William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire (Who is BILL AYERS ?
*Including the "eliminationist" variety. See William Ayer's manifesto above.
Funny that you quote the CFR as a source of reliable information regarding foreign policy.
The question of whether or not Iran engages in terrorism is a question of fact, not of foreign policy. It is well established that Iran engages in terrorism, both directly and indirectly.
You should note that is only possible if the Iranian government gives in to its general inclination towards terrorism and hatred of the United States. (Talk about low hanging fruit.)
That's the great thing about having big stockpiles of chemical weapons - there are plenty to go around, capture, and use. But do keep in mind that the Syrian government has a bit more practice and training for this sort of thing.
Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about
So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details
Does this help?
Sarin gas was used in Syrian chemical weapons attack, says David Cameron
The positive tests for sarin were completed this week and made on clothes and soil taken from the site of the attack in Ghouta, eastern Damascus on 21 August. The tests were carried out in the past seven days by British scientists at the Porton Down facility, and will be deployed by Cameron in a fresh attempt to persuade the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to do more to force the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to the negotiating table.
The samples brought to the UK from the Syrian borders are different to the hair and blood samples tested in the US. Details of those test results were released by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, four days ago.
I guess we can always count on you to sympathize with people that think the US should be attacked, and Americans killed, because you're such a super "patriot," or something.
By the way, I've got a question for you. I don't think that the collapse of the World Trade Center from the 9/11 attacks in New York, crushing thousands of people to death, resulted in the "Tree of Liberty" growing any stronger from the blood shed. Do you? Do you think they were just not "patriotic enough" to make a difference? Is there any point where you think too much American blood can be shed in slaughter instead of battle? Or is every American killed at work or shopping by terrorists another tick mark toward "liberty" to you - the more Americans murdered the "freer" you feel?
One of the hazards of the news business is that occasionally you end up reporting unpleasant or disagreeable news like this. Even "rainbows and puppies" papers like USA today are carrying the story.
Do you prefer the news, or rainbows, puppies, and unicorns?
Sniff..sniff..?? ... sniff..sniff....... smells like a troll to me.
Sire, once he is clear, shall the raise the shields? .... What about the drawbridge? Oh, and the oil... shall I put the fire out? Or were we expecting more company?
The "stand your ground" law never entered into the Martin-Zimmerman situation on the street, or in the courtroom as a matter of law. You seem to be fixated by the idea of it despite the fact it is irrelevant. You may want to consider counseling if you can't stop thinking about it. The thoughts you are expressing don't really seem appropriate.
I don't think Trayvon was "George Zimmerman's black."
uppity [úppitee]
adj
presumptuous: behaving in a way that is considered presumptuous and more suited to somebody belonging a higher social class or position (informal)
Hmmm, I don't see physical assault as part of the definition of "uppity." And the only time Trayvon was in a "higher position" was when he was on top of Zimmerman, beating his head into the ground, so that doesn't really work. You must not be using that right. Maybe because you are trying to be incendiary?
Once again, no, the US did not fund or provide resources to start al Qaida.
A history of terror: Al-Qaeda 1988-2008 --- Note the Leftist approved source!
11 AUGUST 1988 Al-Qaeda is formed at a meeting attended by Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Dr Fadl in Peshawar, Pakistan. The creation of the group brings together extraordinary Saudi wealth, the expertise of a lifetime Egyptian militant, and a philosophical foundation for jihad from a Cairo intellectual
Also note how close that date is to the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan: The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989
That isn't much time for the US to fund and develop al Qaida, is it? That's because it didn't happen.
The US did supply funds for the native Afghan resistance. The Taliban didn't form until after the Soviets left Afghanistan and the country was in civil war. Turning Afghanistan into the "Soviet's Vietnam" - turnabout being fair play - didn't require the Taliban, which didn't exist yet, or Al Qaida.
The actual reason you find it "impossible" to debate me is that unlike many here I'm actually reasonably well acquainted with the facts in certain areas and not taken in by the nonsense you hurl, at times, instead of facts.
"...leave the thinking to those with the proper equipment?" Pro Tip: The proper equipment for thinking isn't below the waist, either front or back. There are times when certain topics are being discussed it seems that one is what you know, and the other is the source of your "facts."
Now, just so I don't have to end this on that note.... for whatever it is worth to you, I voted up this story that you submitted. I thought it was an interesting submission, and I've been meaning to tell you that. It was an interesting read. I thought you should have tried submitting it again.
Cheers
Depends. They both hate the US and Israel.
Before directly answering your question I will point out that the allegations of Saudi involvement for Sarin based on the presented "evidence" is nonsense. As to your question....
Yes, pretty much - the Saudis couldn't "do" what Aum Shinrikyo did. They are two different types of events. The attack in Tokyo was a terrorist attack with hand-carried home-brew sarin (made by a group with over $1,000,000,000 in assets) used to attack people in a highly enclosed space (about the best possible environment for the success of their attack) and it only managed to kill 13 people*. That isn't very effective. The attack in Syria killed over 1,400 people in the open, and was delivered by artillery rockets, not by plastic bag. Killing people in those circumstances is much more difficult. The success of the Syrian attack points to much more sarin used in the attack, higher purity in the sarin used, which means much more sophisticated chemical agent processing, deliberate development of chemical agent rocket artillery warheads, and proper planning and weapons handling needed to build a lethal dose of the nerve gas chemical agent on the target under the specific weather conditions. All of those activities would potentially be detectable to intelligence operations, but there don't seem to be any indications of that regarding the Saudis and rebels. A shipment of chemical weapons is almost certainly going to be handled differently than ordinary high explosives, and will probably be detectable by intelligence operations, something which I haven't heard any indication of regarding the Saudis and rebels.
There do seem to be indications of the Assad regime handling such weapons though.
Here Is the Evidence the U.S. Has on a Syrian Chemical-Weapons Attack
Troops led by Assad’s brother likely to blame for chemical weapons, Syrian activists say
Highly effective chemical agent rocket warheads aren't something that are just tossed off the assembly line for plastic water bottles on alternate weeks. They are a highly specialized weapon with many highly specialized components. The Saudis have signed the treated banning them, and I thought it was common wisdom by many on Slashdot that every country on earth followed treaties without cheating except for the US. How could the Saudi's cheat?
* Al Qaida had planned attacks on the New York subway system but called them off because they weren't certain that they would kill enough people to maintain their reputation.
There appears to be much evidence that it was in fact the rebels that used the chemical weapons which were supplied by the Saudis,
There appears to be a lot of false evidence and fabrications, that's for sure. The allegation is that the chemical agent used is the nerve gas called Sarin.
Sarin gas was used in Syrian chemical weapons attack, says David Cameron
Sarin is not a dual purpose industrial gas that can be used as a chemical weapon, it is a pure chemical weapon. Saudi Arabia isn't known to have Sarin, and they have signed the treaties against it. Sarin is extremely deadly and not really a substance for haphazard manufacture or haphazard loading into munitions. If the allegation is that the Saudi's are supplying Sarin, the question is: "Where did they get it?" From Saddam? He used to have it, but I think we can agree that one is right out. Iran? No, Iran is fighting on the other side. So where did it come from?
I think that any claim that the Saudis supplied the Syrian rebels with Sarin gas weapons is a fabrication.
Bin Laden attacked the United States in large part because it is not a Muslim country governed by Sharia law. Those were his two big demands after 9/11: convert to Islam, and replace the Constitution with Sharia law.
Saddly it is the same old story from you - anyone attacking the US is justified, the US is always wrong to defend itself. You don't even acknowledge the blame game that many "leaders" in the Middle East play - all the corruption committed by Palestinian leaders is America's fault, all the deaths that result are their fault too. Saddam steals food and medicine money - America's fault. Arafat steals investment money - America's fault. The Mullahs mismanage the economy - America's fault.
Somehow you never seem to take note of al Qaida's goal to take over every country and install an Islamist government with Sharia law. Why is it that?
And by the way, the US doesn't have to wait for some Muslim group to start bombing buildings and indiscriminately killing thousands, including children in the US. It was called 9/11, to which you can add the Embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, and others.
Ultimately they are pissed off because they don't rule the world yet as they think Allah promised. Instead they see their civilization being left behind by the world and they want the glory days of Islamic conquest and rule back. I guess you see no problems with that, only with the US.
There is no risk - it's guaranteed you'll die.
BTW, are you a consistent fellow who thinks we should abandon all public health and safety measures, since life's a risk and we're all going to die anyway?
Well, that sheds a little light into your ... thinking.