Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[give her dixie]

John Kerry Costs U.S. Defense Industry $400 Billion


WASHINGTON—Responding to initial reports that Syria may relinquish its stockpile of chemical weapons following Secretary of State John Kerry's assertion that doing so would decrease the likelihood of American military strikes, representatives for the domestic defense industry complained to reporters Tuesday that the top-ranking diplomat may have cost them $400 billion in revenue.

"We were ready to produce and sell tomahawk missiles, advanced combat systems, and more unmanned predator drones, but instead our Secretary of State had to run his big fat mouth about options for averting war, and now we're out hundreds of billions of dollars," said a visibly upset Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn A. Hewson, who along with her fellow executives at Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics complained that because the initial invasion would have more than likely led to a protracted, wide-ranging international conflict, Kerry might have even cost them trillions.

"With thousands of new munitions and logistical support contracts, Syria would have been a goldmine for us. I swear to God, if this doesn't work out John Kerry owes us half a trillion dollars." Hewson added that it was some consolation that, with Kerry as the country's chief foreign affairs liaison, he would "probably say something idiotic" in the near future that would lead to another lucrative international conflict.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-costs-us-defense-industry-400-billion,33815/?ref=auto

[mouview]

It's very positive if Syria escapes bombing by dismantling its chemical weapons but it's hypocritical in the extreme to allow Israel to hang onto its nuclear weapons. Why is Israel subject to different rules to everyone else?

You have much more knowledge than me about this area of the world Seaf, but Israel is at least democratic and it's government doesn't resort to bombing or gassing the opposition. Who would you really trust with nukes? A stable, educated, largely judicial pro-western state or one (Iran) whose avowed aim is to eliminate another sovereign nation, a sponsor and mentor of terrorist organisations and a country that is guided overly so by theocrats? No debate surely...

[Mike Sheehy]

It's very positive if Syria escapes bombing by dismantling its chemical weapons but it's hypocritical in the extreme to allow Israel to hang onto its nuclear weapons. Why is Israel subject to different rules to everyone else?

Good question but why have jews attracted such irrational hatred from places as diverse as Ukraine and Galway long before the present day conflict ?. I think the stance of the US/Israel is irretrievably linked to this question.

[give her dixie]

It's very positive if Syria escapes bombing by dismantling its chemical weapons but it's hypocritical in the extreme to allow Israel to hang onto its nuclear weapons. Why is Israel subject to different rules to everyone else?

You have much more knowledge than me about this area of the world Seaf, but Israel is at least democratic and it's government doesn't resort to bombing or gassing the opposition. Who would you really trust with nukes? A stable, educated, largely judicial pro-western state or one (Iran) whose avowed aim is to eliminate another sovereign nation, a sponsor and mentor of terrorist organisations and a country that is guided overly so by theocrats? No debate surely...

Mouview, only a couple of years ago Israel used Chemical Weapons on a civilian population in Gaza. They have attacked Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, and ships heading to Gaza with aid. That is just in the last 6 years. Who has Iran attacked?

Democratic, you are having a laugh. Have a look at how they treat the Palestinians living in Israel. They have an Aparthied system set up that is on a par with South Africa back in the day.

Iran has signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and allow inspectors in. Israel refuse to sign it, refuse to allow inspectors, and have hundreds of nukes.

Israel have over 60 UN resolutions against them, and they havn't been brought to book on one of them because they are protected by the US.

Israel deserve to be treated the same as any other nation, and be held to account for breaking international laws repeatedly.

[Mike Sheehy]

It's very positive if Syria escapes bombing by dismantling its chemical weapons but it's hypocritical in the extreme to allow Israel to hang onto its nuclear weapons. Why is Israel subject to different rules to everyone else?

You have much more knowledge than me about this area of the world Seaf, but Israel is at least democratic and it's government doesn't resort to bombing or gassing the opposition. Who would you really trust with nukes? A stable, educated, largely judicial pro-western state or one (Iran) whose avowed aim is to eliminate another sovereign nation, a sponsor and mentor of terrorist organisations and a country that is guided overly so by theocrats? No debate surely...

Israel deserve to be treated the same as any other nation, and be held to account for breaking international laws repeatedly.

Yup, and jews deserved to be treated the same as any other religion. As much as you would like to dodge the question it is fundamental to the issue.

[johnneycool]

It's very positive if Syria escapes bombing by dismantling its chemical weapons but it's hypocritical in the extreme to allow Israel to hang onto its nuclear weapons. Why is Israel subject to different rules to everyone else?

You have much more knowledge than me about this area of the world Seaf, but Israel is at least democratic and it's government doesn't resort to bombing or gassing the opposition. Who would you really trust with nukes? A stable, educated, largely judicial pro-western state or one (Iran) whose avowed aim is to eliminate another sovereign nation, a sponsor and mentor of terrorist organisations and a country that is guided overly so by theocrats? No debate surely...

If we're told it often enough on the TV often enough then it does sink into our psyche. We're now conditioned to think that certain countries are run by despots and dictators without any actual thought or proof of what we're being told.

We've no problems with Saudia Arabia who're theocrats and had no issues when they quelled their arab spring, yet they're good guys as they're not trawled in front of our TV screens night after night like Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gadaffi were.

We're being fed a definitive line by the main news outlets who don't deviate too much from the script in hand.

We're not being told that these rebels in Libya and Syria are actually heavily linked with Al-Qaeda and being used by other powers in the region for their vested interests.
We're not being told how many people are still being killed in places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan after 'democracy' has been given to them and we're certainly not being told who's pumping the oil out of these places.

[Count 10]

It's all about the one true God.....

[seafoid]

It's very positive if Syria escapes bombing by dismantling its chemical weapons but it's hypocritical in the extreme to allow Israel to hang onto its nuclear weapons. Why is Israel subject to different rules to everyone else?

You have much more knowledge than me about this area of the world Seaf, but Israel is at least democratic and it's government doesn't resort to bombing or gassing the opposition. Who would you really trust with nukes? A stable, educated, largely judicial pro-western state or one (Iran) whose avowed aim is to eliminate another sovereign nation, a sponsor and mentor of terrorist organisations and a country that is guided overly so by theocrats? No debate surely...

Israel deserve to be treated the same as any other nation, and be held to account for breaking international laws repeatedly.

Yup, and jews deserved to be treated the same as any other religion. As much as you would like to dodge the question it is fundamental to the issue.

Jews deserve their own country. They deserve the same rights as everyone else. They deserve to live in peace.
But the Israelis can't run apartheid just because of what happened in WW2 and expect the world to accept it.

[haveaharp]

But the Israelis can't run apartheid just because of what happened in WW2 and expect the world to accept it.
[/quote]

They do and they are though

[give her dixie]

CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile of chemical weapons


A newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

The revelation comes in the midst of the reported use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government on August 21st, although there is still no clarity as to whether the regime or the rebels carried out the attack, or whether it was an accident.

While U.S. President Barack Obama threatened to go to war with Syria over the attack, the Syrian government has denied responsibility, and has agreed to a proposal by the Russian government to open its stores of chemical weapons to international inspection and destruction.

The document revealed by Foreign Policy magazine on Monday shows that, in addition to building up a nuclear stockpile of an estimated three hundred nuclear weapons during the 1960s and 70s, the Israeli military also developed an extensive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

The 1983 document stated that U.S. spy satellites had identified "a probable CW [chemical weapon] nerve agent production facility and a storage facility... at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry."

"While we cannot confirm whether the Israelis possess lethal chemical agents," the document adds, "several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, marched with suitable delivery systems."

The single page of a larger CIA report was discovered at the Ronald Reagan Library in California in its unredacted form – the report had been released several years ago to the National Archives, but was heavily censored.

According to the Foreign Policy report, "Israeli historian Avner Cohen, in his 1988 book Israel and the Bomb, wrote that Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion secretly ordered that a stockpile of chemical weapons be built at about the time of the 1956 war between Israel and Egypt. The CIA, on the other hand, believed that Israel did not begin work on chemical weapons until either the late 1960s or the early 1970s.

The article included the following assessment from the 1983 CIA report: "Israel, finding itself surrounded by frontline Arab states with budding CW [chemical weapons] capabilities, became increasingly conscious of its vulnerability to chemical attack. Its sensitivities were galvanized by the capture of large quantities of Soviet CW-related equipment during both the 1967 Arab-Israeli and the 1973 Yom Kippur wars. As a result, Israel undertook a program of chemical warfare preparations in both offensive and protective areas."

The Israeli government has harshly criticized the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons three weeks ago, and has encouraged President Obama's pledge to respond militarily.

Israel did sign the Convention to Ban Chemical Weapons, but the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) never ratified the treaty. Israel has never opened its nuclear facility or its chemical weapons stockpile to international inspections.

http://www.imemc.org/article/66095

[muppet]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0911/473478-obama-vows-to-explore-diplomatic-route-on-syria/

UN human rights investigators have said Syrian government forces and opposition forces have committed war crimes.

They said government forces had massacred civilians, bombed hospitals and committed other war crimes in widespread attacks to recapture territory from rebels this year.

Opposition forces, including Islamist foreign fighters, are said to have been involved in executions, hostage-taking and shelling of civilian neighbourhoods.

The investigators' latest report covers the period of 15 May to 15 July.

Paulo Pinheiro of Brazil, who leads the UN commission of inquiry, said: "The perpetrators of these violations and crimes, on all sides, act in defiance of international law.

"They do not fear accountability. Referral to justice is imperative."

The independent experts said they had received allegations about the use of chemical weapons "predominantly by government forces".
They added: "On the evidence currently available, it was not possible to reach a finding about the chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrators. Investigations are ongoing."

The team of about 20 investigators carried out 258 interviews with refugees, defectors and others in the region and in Geneva, including via Skype, for their 11th report in two years.

They have never been allowed into Syria despite repeated requests.

The report called for a political solution to Syria's civil war and urged other states to "stop weapons transfers in view of the clear risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international law".

US President Barack Obama has vowed to pursue a diplomatic initiative from Russia over Syria's chemical weapons.

However, in a live address from the White House, he again voiced scepticism and urged Americans to support the use of military force.
Mr Obama said the Russian offer to push Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to place chemical weapons under international control offered the possibility of heading off the type of limited military strike he is considering against Syria.

He said US and Russian officials would keep talking about the initiative and he would discuss it with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
Mr Obama said he has asked the US Senate to put off a vote on his request for an authorisation of military force to let the diplomacy play out.

He set no timetables for action, but said any deal with President Assad would require verification that he keeps his word.
President Obama added that any agreement must verify that the Assad regime honours its commitments.

But this initiative, he said, has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of President Assad's strongest allies.

Mr Obama has faced stiff resistance in Congress to any military action and politicians on both sides of the issue were quick to seize on the Russian proposal as a possible way out, despite scepticism about its eventual success.

President Obama used much of his speech to lay out the case against Syria, saying there was plenty of evidence showing that the Syrian government was behind the 21 August chemical weapons attack that killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.

He argued that Syria should face consequences for using such weapons because much of the world has long since adopted a ban on chemical weapons and that if the civilised world does nothing to respond, it will only embolden US adversaries.

Mr Obama warned that US Navy ships in the eastern Mediterranean and other forces in the region are in place and ready to respond should diplomacy fail.

Meanwhile, an initial French draft UN Security Council resolution demands that Syria make a complete declaration of its chemical weapons programme within 15 days.

It also calls for Syria to immediately open all related sites to UN inspectors or face possible punitive measures.

The French draft comes in response to a Russian plan, announced on Monday, for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons to international control in order to avoid a US military strike.

Syria has said it accepts the Russian plan.

This is an interesting story from the UN. Both sides allegedly committed war crimes, but there is no evidence of a Chemical Weapons attack, yet. But investigations by the UN are ongoing. I wonder did the US pass the evidence that lead to the 'strong confidence' statement from the White House. If not, why not? And if they did, then it doesn't sound like the UN came to the same conclusion.

This part of Obama's speech is interesting.

"President Obama used much of his speech to lay out the case against Syria, saying there was plenty of evidence showing that the Syrian government was behind the 21 August chemical weapons attack that killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.

He argued that Syria should face consequences for using such weapons because much of the world has long since adopted a ban on chemical weapons and that if the civilised world does nothing to respond, it will only embolden US adversaries."

He tells the world there is evidence the deed was done, which the UN at the moment for whatever reason don't seem to agree with, and then he argues why there should be consequences for this unproven deed. Part of the reason is 'because much of the world has long since adopted a ban on chemical weapons'.

So who hasn't 'adopted a ban on chemical weapons'?

Along with Syria, non-signatories include North Korea, Egypt, the newly formed South Sudan and Angola.

Two countries signed but never 'adopted' the ban, Burma and Israel.

So we have something alleged, for which no proof has been produced (yet). It is not actually illegal in Syria, because they didn't sign up to an international treaty. According to Obama, not signing up to the treaty is a reason for consequences to be faced for the unproven allegation. Thus we can have a country who makes a claim against another country, doesn't bother to prove it, insist that a law agreed outside the subject country applies and on the basis of all that, they can go to war to remove the Government of that country.

But look at the other countries that haven't adopted the treaty. Would they face the suggested consequences for the same reason?

While I was checking my facts for this post, news has come out that Syria will now ratify the Chemical Weapons ban treaty.

There are at least 3 ways to look at that:

1) It is a lie;
2) It is a capitulation;
3) It is a clever move designed mainly to expose the hypocrisy of the situation, given the 2 near neighbours who haven't ratified.

[seafoid]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents

The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.

Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.

The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaCinq8swc4

[Franko]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0911/473478-obama-vows-to-explore-diplomatic-route-on-syria/

UN human rights investigators have said Syrian government forces and opposition forces have committed war crimes.

They said government forces had massacred civilians, bombed hospitals and committed other war crimes in widespread attacks to recapture territory from rebels this year.

Opposition forces, including Islamist foreign fighters, are said to have been involved in executions, hostage-taking and shelling of civilian neighbourhoods.

The investigators' latest report covers the period of 15 May to 15 July.

Paulo Pinheiro of Brazil, who leads the UN commission of inquiry, said: "The perpetrators of these violations and crimes, on all sides, act in defiance of international law.

"They do not fear accountability. Referral to justice is imperative."

The independent experts said they had received allegations about the use of chemical weapons "predominantly by government forces".
They added: "On the evidence currently available, it was not possible to reach a finding about the chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrators. Investigations are ongoing."

The team of about 20 investigators carried out 258 interviews with refugees, defectors and others in the region and in Geneva, including via Skype, for their 11th report in two years.

They have never been allowed into Syria despite repeated requests.

The report called for a political solution to Syria's civil war and urged other states to "stop weapons transfers in view of the clear risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international law".

US President Barack Obama has vowed to pursue a diplomatic initiative from Russia over Syria's chemical weapons.

However, in a live address from the White House, he again voiced scepticism and urged Americans to support the use of military force.
Mr Obama said the Russian offer to push Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to place chemical weapons under international control offered the possibility of heading off the type of limited military strike he is considering against Syria.

He said US and Russian officials would keep talking about the initiative and he would discuss it with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
Mr Obama said he has asked the US Senate to put off a vote on his request for an authorisation of military force to let the diplomacy play out.

He set no timetables for action, but said any deal with President Assad would require verification that he keeps his word.
President Obama added that any agreement must verify that the Assad regime honours its commitments.

But this initiative, he said, has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of President Assad's strongest allies.

Mr Obama has faced stiff resistance in Congress to any military action and politicians on both sides of the issue were quick to seize on the Russian proposal as a possible way out, despite scepticism about its eventual success.

President Obama used much of his speech to lay out the case against Syria, saying there was plenty of evidence showing that the Syrian government was behind the 21 August chemical weapons attack that killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.

He argued that Syria should face consequences for using such weapons because much of the world has long since adopted a ban on chemical weapons and that if the civilised world does nothing to respond, it will only embolden US adversaries.

Mr Obama warned that US Navy ships in the eastern Mediterranean and other forces in the region are in place and ready to respond should diplomacy fail.

Meanwhile, an initial French draft UN Security Council resolution demands that Syria make a complete declaration of its chemical weapons programme within 15 days.

It also calls for Syria to immediately open all related sites to UN inspectors or face possible punitive measures.

The French draft comes in response to a Russian plan, announced on Monday, for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons to international control in order to avoid a US military strike.

Syria has said it accepts the Russian plan.

This is an interesting story from the UN. Both sides allegedly committed war crimes, but there is no evidence of a Chemical Weapons attack, yet. But investigations by the UN are ongoing. I wonder did the US pass the evidence that lead to the 'strong confidence' statement from the White House. If not, why not? And if they did, then it doesn't sound like the UN came to the same conclusion.

This part of Obama's speech is interesting.

"President Obama used much of his speech to lay out the case against Syria, saying there was plenty of evidence showing that the Syrian government was behind the 21 August chemical weapons attack that killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.

He argued that Syria should face consequences for using such weapons because much of the world has long since adopted a ban on chemical weapons and that if the civilised world does nothing to respond, it will only embolden US adversaries."

He tells the world there is evidence the deed was done, which the UN at the moment for whatever reason don't seem to agree with, and then he argues why there should be consequences for this unproven deed. Part of the reason is 'because much of the world has long since adopted a ban on chemical weapons'.

So who hasn't 'adopted a ban on chemical weapons'?

Along with Syria, non-signatories include North Korea, Egypt, the newly formed South Sudan and Angola.

Two countries signed but never 'adopted' the ban, Burma and Israel.

So we have something alleged, for which no proof has been produced (yet). It is not actually illegal in Syria, because they didn't sign up to an international treaty. According to Obama, not signing up to the treaty is a reason for consequences to be faced for the unproven allegation. Thus we can have a country who makes a claim against another country, doesn't bother to prove it, insist that a law agreed outside the subject country applies and on the basis of all that, they can go to war to remove the Government of that country.

But look at the other countries that haven't adopted the treaty. Would they face the suggested consequences for the same reason?

While I was checking my facts for this post, news has come out that Syria will now ratify the Chemical Weapons ban treaty.

There are at least 3 ways to look at that:

1) It is a lie;
2) It is a capitulation;
3) It is a clever move designed mainly to expose the hypocrisy of the situation, given the 2 near neighbours who haven't ratified.

Surely the bit in bold indicates that an attack did take place but that they cannot pin down the details.  The fact that the said they couldn't reach a finding on the 'chemical agents used' would IMO imply that chemical agents were used?

[muppet]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0911/473478-obama-vows-to-explore-diplomatic-route-on-syria/

UN human rights investigators have said Syrian government forces and opposition forces have committed war crimes.

They said government forces had massacred civilians, bombed hospitals and committed other war crimes in widespread attacks to recapture territory from rebels this year.

Opposition forces, including Islamist foreign fighters, are said to have been involved in executions, hostage-taking and shelling of civilian neighbourhoods.

The investigators' latest report covers the period of 15 May to 15 July.

Paulo Pinheiro of Brazil, who leads the UN commission of inquiry, said: "The perpetrators of these violations and crimes, on all sides, act in defiance of international law.

"They do not fear accountability. Referral to justice is imperative."

The independent experts said they had received allegations about the use of chemical weapons "predominantly by government forces".
They added: "On the evidence currently available, it was not possible to reach a finding about the chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrators. Investigations are ongoing."

The team of about 20 investigators carried out 258 interviews with refugees, defectors and others in the region and in Geneva, including via Skype, for their 11th report in two years.

They have never been allowed into Syria despite repeated requests.

The report called for a political solution to Syria's civil war and urged other states to "stop weapons transfers in view of the clear risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international law".

US President Barack Obama has vowed to pursue a diplomatic initiative from Russia over Syria's chemical weapons.

However, in a live address from the White House, he again voiced scepticism and urged Americans to support the use of military force.
Mr Obama said the Russian offer to push Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to place chemical weapons under international control offered the possibility of heading off the type of limited military strike he is considering against Syria.

He said US and Russian officials would keep talking about the initiative and he would discuss it with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
Mr Obama said he has asked the US Senate to put off a vote on his request for an authorisation of military force to let the diplomacy play out.

He set no timetables for action, but said any deal with President Assad would require verification that he keeps his word.
President Obama added that any agreement must verify that the Assad regime honours its commitments.

But this initiative, he said, has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of President Assad's strongest allies.

Mr Obama has faced stiff resistance in Congress to any military action and politicians on both sides of the issue were quick to seize on the Russian proposal as a possible way out, despite scepticism about its eventual success.

President Obama used much of his speech to lay out the case against Syria, saying there was plenty of evidence showing that the Syrian government was behind the 21 August chemical weapons attack that killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.

He argued that Syria should face consequences for using such weapons because much of the world has long since adopted a ban on chemical weapons and that if the civilised world does nothing to respond, it will only embolden US adversaries.

Mr Obama warned that US Navy ships in the eastern Mediterranean and other forces in the region are in place and ready to respond should diplomacy fail.

Meanwhile, an initial French draft UN Security Council resolution demands that Syria make a complete declaration of its chemical weapons programme within 15 days.

It also calls for Syria to immediately open all related sites to UN inspectors or face possible punitive measures.

The French draft comes in response to a Russian plan, announced on Monday, for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons to international control in order to avoid a US military strike.

Syria has said it accepts the Russian plan.

This is an interesting story from the UN. Both sides allegedly committed war crimes, but there is no evidence of a Chemical Weapons attack, yet. But investigations by the UN are ongoing. I wonder did the US pass the evidence that lead to the 'strong confidence' statement from the White House. If not, why not? And if they did, then it doesn't sound like the UN came to the same conclusion.

This part of Obama's speech is interesting.

"President Obama used much of his speech to lay out the case against Syria, saying there was plenty of evidence showing that the Syrian government was behind the 21 August chemical weapons attack that killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.

He argued that Syria should face consequences for using such weapons because much of the world has long since adopted a ban on chemical weapons and that if the civilised world does nothing to respond, it will only embolden US adversaries."

He tells the world there is evidence the deed was done, which the UN at the moment for whatever reason don't seem to agree with, and then he argues why there should be consequences for this unproven deed. Part of the reason is 'because much of the world has long since adopted a ban on chemical weapons'.

So who hasn't 'adopted a ban on chemical weapons'?

Along with Syria, non-signatories include North Korea, Egypt, the newly formed South Sudan and Angola.

Two countries signed but never 'adopted' the ban, Burma and Israel.

So we have something alleged, for which no proof has been produced (yet). It is not actually illegal in Syria, because they didn't sign up to an international treaty. According to Obama, not signing up to the treaty is a reason for consequences to be faced for the unproven allegation. Thus we can have a country who makes a claim against another country, doesn't bother to prove it, insist that a law agreed outside the subject country applies and on the basis of all that, they can go to war to remove the Government of that country.

But look at the other countries that haven't adopted the treaty. Would they face the suggested consequences for the same reason?

While I was checking my facts for this post, news has come out that Syria will now ratify the Chemical Weapons ban treaty.

There are at least 3 ways to look at that:

1) It is a lie;
2) It is a capitulation;
3) It is a clever move designed mainly to expose the hypocrisy of the situation, given the 2 near neighbours who haven't ratified.

Surely the bit in bold indicates that an attack did take place but that they cannot pin down the details.  The fact that the said they couldn't reach a finding on the 'chemical agents used' would IMO imply that chemical agents were used?

Yea, I can see how it could be interpreted that way. But they open with 'both sides' committed war crimes. And even if they are saying chemical weapons were used (but they couldn't reach a finding) it is still ambiguous as they don't say which side. Unless they are saying both sides did it.

[Franko]

My reading of it is that they have found evidence of an attack but since they cannot determine the agent used and the delivery method they cannot attribute blame to either side yet.