Chemical Weapons for Terrorists?

Blog No.65.

In my recent blog on ‘The Zombie Apocalypse’ Click: Zombies. I had hoped to be able to include reference to the following hyperlink. The writer, Bob Rigg, is a Wellington-based friend of mine, who was unable to allow me to quote from the article until after Open Democracy had published it. Click: Zombie CW Now it has been published, it is well worth the read in full.

CW is not an easy weapon for a terrorist organisation to use. Delivery to target requires bulky apparatus such as the rockets used in the al Ghouta massacre. Furthermore, given that explosives, offer a far faster and less painful mode of transportation, nerve gas is unlikely to become the ticket of choice for religious zombies wishing to take a trip to Paradise. Though indeed, as Bob suggests, now that Pandora’s Box has been opened, there might be a slightly heightened risk of nerve gases being used as a terror weapon against western publics. However, gas is far more effective as an instigator of mass terror than it is as an instigator of mass casualties.

gas rocket
One of the Al Ghouta delivery vehicles. Hard to conceal about the terrorist person!

Terror is in the minds of the fearful. By categorising the relatively readily accessible gas as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, alongside the infinitely more massive destructive capability offered by similarly categorised nuclear and biological weapons, western powers have achieved little other than to help their opponents to their objective of maximising the terror they are able to instill.

Obama, by claiming that the use of chemical weapons was so frightful that it was the red line that would induce the USA to deploy its full military might against the Syrian Republic, gave this weapon category a prestige in the hierarchy of awfulness that none of the USA’s pre- and post al Ghouta dealings with CW would seem to have justified.

Well before al Ghouta, the USA had actively encouraged Saddam Hussein in his use of chemical weapons against the Iranians. Click: Saddam’s gas furthermore, leading up to al Ghouta, there had been several incidents of the ‘good rebels’ in Syria having used gas (on a modest, experimental scale) against Assad’s soldiers. Indeed, the UN inspectors, who were so conveniently present in Damascus ready to have the al Ghouta false flag waved in front of them, were there at the invitation of the Assad regime to investigate claims that the US supported rebels had been using CW weapons, albeit on a relatively minor scale.

Again, after the al Ghouta incident, in which more than a thousand civilians were usefully massacred by what claimed to be ‘their own side,’ and after the USA had been convinced that their key allies would not support a massive aerial assault on the strength of such dodgy evidence of Assad’s guilt, NATO pretended that the incident had never occurred. There was never any attempt to ascertain which (if not both) of the two most likely false flag wavers had been responsible, NATO member, Turkey, or close American ally, Saudi Arabia.

Red line
Obama: saved by the bell.

Clearly, when used by a US ally (not improbably with a nudge and a wink emanating from somewhere in the USA hierarchy) CW is not viewed as any kind of a red line that shouldn’t be crossed. It should therefore, come as no surprise that if the western anti-Assad alliance sees fit to apply a Sarin sauce to civilian Syrian geese, its Islamic State opponents shouldn’t also apply it to the civilian ganders on western European pavements. Is there a discernible moral point that separates the one from the other?

It is noteworthy that the western alliance strove to get an accusatory investigation launched by the UN into responsibility for the less than 300, mainly European, deaths that resulted from the downing of MH-17 over the Ukraine. Click: Tribunal MH-17 Contrast that with there not being a whimper of concern for the 1,300 or so gassed Syrians once it was obvious that there was no chance of framing Assad. After Assad had been declared guilty by the Obama Administration within hours of the incident and was due to be shock and awe assaulted purely on the Pentagon’s say-so, tens of thousands of Syrian lives were saved by the nay vote of the UK’s parliament and by the wise counsel of the Russians.

With the sole exception of the House of Commons having had the courage to reject its Prime Minister’s urgings to join Obama’s retaliatory’ air strike on Syria, no EU government has bold enouigh to publicly disagree with whatever agenda for Middle Eastern (or Ukrainian) war has been promoted by the Pentagon and its allies in other US agencies.

Whatever the future horrors that might now unfold on western pavements, the western public can console themselves with the thought that the governments that have brought this evil down upon their heads, were of their own choice. The excrement they are having to eat has been generated by their own bodies politic. Perhaps it is that thought that provides the sole consolation that much of recent western democratic decision-making has to offer its electorates.

Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.