Pres. Obama´s “Redline” for Syrian  Chemical “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Absurd

WMD - the reason why Pres Bush attacked Iraq- brings sinister associations of stupid and ruthless war.  Time and again, Pres. Obama and Israeli Prime Minister are setting up “red lines” not to be transgressed, if “rogue states” (states without a Rothschild central Bank) want to avoid punitive intervention by Rothschild´s “International Community”. In Iran it is about nuclear weapons. In Syria it is about terrible chemical weapons. In Libya it was about oil. Although the mendacious Syrian Observatory of Human Rights - which is  integrated in the British Foreign Ministry ist propagandistically claims that as of 18 March 2013 about 60.000 people have been killed in Syria (and the MSM keep quoting those liars) this does not move Obama to intervene. Although a much lower figure of killings was seen in Libya, precisely this small figure was the official reason for the intervention in  Libya in 2011 (Right to Protect) - although the real cause was that Libya has 20 times more uil than e.g. Syria. In Afghanistan, it was about impotent Al Qaeda  “Terrorists” who had never been outside central Asia - and who were founded by the CIA and here faithfully save as US´partners - and of France as well and of the CIA, and the British MI6 ! It is no less than the US´excuse for its worldwide war on terror - by the US Congress called WWIII.

In fact: The New York Times 17 Apr. 2013: Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

Fortunately, both Obama and Israel are making themselves more and more untrustworthy for allowing their “red lines” to be transgressed time and again. Reason: Fear of Russia. Much indicates that the Government´s use of chemical weapons is a fabrication by the AlNusra/AlQaeda rebels supported by the West.

About Syria´s Chemical weapon: Sarin gas.

12 people lost their lives in Japan Tokyo subway in 1995. In another incident in 1994, after a 20-minute release period, the gas spread over an elliptical area measuring about 800 by 570 metres (most effects occurring within a smaller area of 400 by 300 metres). 7 unfortunate residents died as a result of the attack, there were 54 other hospital admissions, and 253 persons sought care at outpatient facilities.
The release of sarin by a terrorist group in Japan resulted in a highly publicized incident with mass casualties. In scale, however, it did not approach the human and environmental toll that has resulted from a number of recent terrorist attacks using conventional explosives.

Its mechanism of action resembles that of some commonly used insecticides, such as malathion. Specifically, sarin is a potent inhibitor of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. Death will usually occur as a result of asphyxia.  It is classified by NATO as a weapon of mass destruction and was forbidden by the UN 1993.

Fox TV has a horrenous interview with some propagandist talking about sarin killing 18.000 persons by means of small quantities!.

So, what is the truth about the “Chemical weapons of Mass destruction”? The following is from the Organ of the US Council on Foreign Relations

Foreign Affairs 30 April 2013 The notion that killing with gas is more reprehensible than killing with bullets or shrapnel came out of World War I, in which chemical weapons, introduced by the Germans in 1915, were used extensively. The British emphasized the weapons’ inhumane aspects as part of their ongoing program to entice the United States into taking their side in the war. It is estimated that the British quintupled their gas casualty figures from the first German attack for dramatic effect. As it happened, chemical weapons accounted for considerably less than one percent of the battle deaths in the war, and, on average, it took over a ton of gas to produce a single fatality. Only about two or three percent of those gassed on the Western front died.

By contrast, wounds from a traditional weapon proved 10 to 12 times more likely to be fatal.

Above: The Independent 26 April 2013: Although the origin of the video - and the veracity of its claims - remains unclear, the patients are thought to be victims of a suspected chemical weapons attack on 13 April, in the rebel-held Sheikh Maqsood area of Aleppo.
The blood hair and soil  samples have not been collected independently by Western investigators inside Syria but handed over by the rebels or, at least on one occasion, by Turkish intelligence; some of the footage may have been faked; the tests had been carried out at the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratories ( DSTL) and multiple locations in America: conclusions on them vary - and are not conclusive. This is what Pres. Obama suspects may have been crossing of his redline!
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said
in Abdu Dhabi Thursday afternoon, April 25, that the US intelligence community believes the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its own people,
A senior Israeli official said on Monday that intelligence services have concrete and unequivocal evidence that Bashar Assad’s military has used chemical weapons against rebels.
However, fortunately for us, Obama does not seem in a hurry to attack Syria.

But that view lost out to the one that the British propagandists had put forward — that chemical weapons were uniquely horrible and must, therefore, be banned.
In 1992, the phrase of “Weapons of mass destruction” was explicitly codified into American law and was determined to include not only nuclear weapons but chemical and biological ones as well.

The muddling of the concept of weapons of mass destruction played a major role in the run-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. That campaign was mainly justified as a way to keep Saddam Hussein from obtaining uniquely destructive weapons. At least in the first instance, this meant chemical weapons, which Iraq had already shown itself capable of developing. Many analysts fear that alarm about chemical weapons could lead the United States into another disaster in Syria if they become the game changer that the Obama administration has proclaimed them to be.

Baghdad’s chemical attack on the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 — have been held up as examples of the extensive destructive potential of chemical weapons. It is commonly contended that 5,000 people died as a result of the gas attacks. But the siege on the city took place over several days and involved explosive munitions as well. Moreover, journalists who were taken to the town shortly after the attack report that they saw at most “hundreds” of bodies. Although some of them report the 5,000 figure, this number is consistently identified as coming from Iranian authorities,

Foreign Affairs May/June 1999 “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD), lumped together with arms that have killed relatively few people to date (biological weapons), arms of much lower potential lethality (chemical weapons), and dramatic but costly and often ineffective delivery vehicles (ballistic missiles).

As these have become prominent bogeymen, the maturation of another impressive method, if not exactly a weapon, of mass destruction has been largely overlooked. The irony is that in contrast to the others, this device – economic sanctions — is deployed frequently, by large states rather than small ones, and may have contributed to more deaths during the post-Cold War era than all weapons of mass destruction throughout history.

On average, far fewer Americans are killed each year by terrorists than are killed by lightning, deer accidents, or peanut allergies. To call terrorism a serious threat to national security is scarcely plausible.

Weapons of mass destruction is an excuse for those powers who have them to force those who do not have them ino obedience.