You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
UK: Syria chemical weapons threat 'unacceptable'
2012-07-24
[Jerusalem Post] Syria's threat to use chemical weapons against foreign intervention is "unacceptable," British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Monday.
Saying it's "unacceptable" implies you're not gonna "accept" it. Not "accepting" it implies you're gonna "do something about it."
"This is typical of the complete illusion of this regime, that they are the victims of external aggression," Hague told news hounds at a European Union
...the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, only without the Hapsburgs and the nifty uniforms and the dancing...
foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels. "What is actually happening is their own people are rising up against a brutal police state ... and in any case it is unacceptable to say that they would use chemical weapons under any circumstances."

Syria said on Monday it could use chemical weapons in response to any "external aggression" but they would not be used in Syrian Hereditary President-for-Life Bashir Pencilneck al-Assad
Light of the Alawites...
's campaign to crush a 16-month-old uprising against his rule.

Foreign Ministry front man Jihad Makdissi said any chemical or bacterial weapons were securely stored by the armed forces.

"The ministry wants to re-affirm the stance of the Syrian Arab Republic that any chemical or bacterial weapon will never be used - and I repeat will never be used - during the crisis in Syria regardless of the developments," Makdissi said.

"These weapons are stored and secured by Syrian military forces and under its direct supervision and will never be used unless Syria faces external aggression."
Posted by:Fred

#3  While this is probably just idle talk by British upper-crust dim-bulbs, there is a real point to be made here. Say instead, "If Syria uses WMD on anyone, then Britain will use WMD on the Syrian leadership and WMD weapons depots."

Such a statement would clearly indicate to the people holding the weapons in Syria that to follow an order to use them would result in their immediate death. Similarly for the military chain of command that surrounds the leadership.

Such a threat would completely eliminate the possibility that the Syrian weapons would ever be used.
Posted by: rammer   2012-07-24 20:52  

#2  Not only 'unacceptable' but also 'inappropriate.'

There. That'll show'm.
Posted by: Shinter Javirong9154   2012-07-24 16:55  

#1  You can't kill him & his more than once, morons.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2012-07-24 01:32  

00:00