Alert: Pentagon Sees Chemical Weapons Activity At Syrian Air Base

by
June 27, 2017

pentagon-sees-chemical-waponsThe Pentagon said Tuesday the United States has seen chemical weapons activity at Syrian air base used in past chemical attack.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a spokesman at the Pentagon, confirmed what was first announced in a White House statement Monday night: Syrian President Bashar Assad appears to be taking some of the same actions he took before a chemical weapons attack on his own people in April.

“We had seen activity at Shayrat Airfield, the same airfield we struck in April, that indicated active preparations for chemical weapons use,” Davis said.

That’s the same airfield the United States attacked on President Trump’s orders in April following a previous chemical weapons attack. The Syrian military used that airfield to launch the planes that carried out the attack.

  • Betty

    Russia egging Assad on to provoke the US , THEY do not care about human life

  • Richard Bagenstose

    hummm who cares , i don’t ,there can’t be many civilians left in syria , so let him gas the rest and end this crap once and for all and then put an embargo on syria , what do they produce besides dead bodies ,just like the rest of the middle easy , haven’t you learned yet , by getting rid of the dictators ,it only makes it worse, they keep the crazy muslims in line

  • Tiger

    We are in this together right?

    Introduction

    The perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
    has become one of the most important issues on foreign policy and
    national security agendas. The WMD threat has, for example, profoundly
    influenced the Bush administration’s national security and homeland
    security strategies. [1] For the United States and like-minded allies,
    Iraq’s alleged possession of WMD has become a casus belli. The rise to
    prominence of the WMD threat raises questions about the role of
    international law concerning WMD in this new environment.

    Traditional International Legal Approaches to WMD

    In security and foreign policy analyses, “weapons of mass
    destruction” is a term that generally encompasses nuclear, chemical, and
    biological weapons, with radiological weapons occasionally included.
    Contemporary international legal analysis generally follows this
    conventional definition of WMD, even though neither treaty law nor
    customary international law contains an authoritative definition of WMD.
    The reason such a definition does not exist is that states have
    historically used international law to address each category of weapons
    within the WMD rubric. International law specifically on WMD is, thus,
    composed of three different sets of rules for each WMD technology.
    General rules of international law, such as international humanitarian
    law, also apply to WMD; [2] but these general principles were not
    developed specifically to address WMD.

    The dominant international legal activity on WMD has been
    the negotiation and implementation of arms control treaties. This arms
    control approach reflected three objectives-to deter the use of WMD by
    states (e.g., nuclear arms control treaties between the United States
    and the Soviet Union [3] ), to prohibit the emplacement and testing of
    WMD in certain areas (e.g., treaties prohibiting WMD in orbit or on the
    sea-bed or ocean floor [4] ), and to produce WMD disarmament (e.g.,
    treaties prohibiting development and use of biological and chemical
    weapons [5] ). Although arms control treaties contributed to the
    development of customary norms restricting or prohibiting the use of
    WMD, development and possession of WMD was not, outside the treaty
    context, illegal under customary international law.

    The Transformation of the WMD Policy and Legal Environment

    In the post-Cold War period, political and technological
    developments created three WMD challenges that rendered the historical
    reliance on arms control treaties suspect. First, in the 1990s, concern
    mounted about WMD proliferation by states and terrorist groups,
    suggesting the world confronted increasing interest in WMD by state and
    non-state actors. In light of these increasing motivations to possess
    WMD, the traditional arms control approach seemed insufficient to
    address either kind of proliferation.

    Second, experts argued that the technological difficulties
    traditionally confronted in developing WMD were diminishing for state
    and non-state actors. Advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering
    revolutionized, for example, the technological context of bioweapons.
    The arms control approach had long struggled with the challenges posed
    by the dual-use nature of all WMD technologies; and the transformed
    technological contexts exacerbated the dual-use problem and complicated
    verification efforts in arms control for all three WMD areas. The
    perceived increase in the technological feasibility of WMD development
    combined with concerns about growing state and terrorist interest in WMD
    to compound fears about the WMD threat.

    Third, the political and technological developments
    described above forced governments to confront the vulnerabilities their
    societies faced from terrorism involving WMD. Events, such as the
    chemical terrorism perpetrated by Aum Shinriyko in Japan in 1995,
    stimulated efforts to improve domestic preparedness for catastrophic
    terrorism. The September 11th and anthrax attacks accelerated attempts
    in the United States and other countries to improve “homeland security.”
    The arms control approach to WMD did not address the vulnerability
    crises countries faced in the post-Cold War period.

    International Law in the New WMD Environment

    The transformation of the WMD policy and legal environment
    has produced awareness that the arms control approach does not
    adequately address the political, technological, and preparedness
    challenges countries now confront with WMD. Although arms control
    remains important, the new WMD environment is witnessing a
    diversification in how states and international organizations use
    international law in connection with the WMD threat.

    In connection with the perceived increase in WMD
    proliferation by states and non-state actors, new international legal
    efforts and proposals aimed at strengthening deterrence against WMD
    development and use have appeared. These include: (1) Security Council
    action against Iraq concerning its alleged WMD programs; [6] (2) U.S.
    efforts to extend the right of anticipatory self-defense to justify
    military action in “pre-emptive self-defense” against a hostile regime
    armed with or pursuing WMD; [7] (3) criminalizing WMD terrorism in
    treaty law; [8] and (4) proposals to make the development, retention,
    acquisition, or transfer of biological and chemical weapons a crime
    under international law. [9]

    International cooperation and legal activity has also begun
    to address the increasing technological feasibility of WMD.
    International efforts to improve national control and regulation of
    access to, and transfer of, WMD materials have started, for example,
    within the Australia Group and through the Biological Weapons
    Convention. Multilateral initiatives, such as the G-8 Global Partnership
    Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, [10]
    also contribute to international activities designed to protect WMD
    materials from malevolent appropriation. In the same spirit, experts
    have proposed new treaties on improving the safety and security of
    biological agents. [11]

    The challenge of domestic preparedness is also the subject
    of international diplomatic and legal activities. Strengthening domestic
    preparedness against WMD terrorism has become, for example, an agenda
    item in a number of multilateral forums, including NATO, the World
    Health Organization, World Customs Organization, and the International
    Maritime Organization. In addition, specific multilateral initiatives,
    such as the Ottawa Plan, [12] have made improved domestic preparedness
    for WMD terrorism the focus of diplomatic attention.

    Conclusion

    In the new WMD environment, states and international
    organizations are diversifying the role international law plays in
    connection with the WMD threat. The traditional arms control approach no
    longer monopolizes the international legal strategy against WMD. This
    development suggests that the need for international law in connection
    with the WMD threat may be higher now than in previous historical
    periods. The dangers and uncertainties confronting the use of
    international law in this new WMD environment may also be historically
    unprecedented, as U.S. interpretations of international law to justify
    military action against Iraq and the worsening crisis with North Korea
    both demonstrate.

  • Tiger

    And this is an international problem not an American one. The international community has laws about WMD that is Chemical/Biological and Nuclear. What makes us think they are not setting some form of trap knowing what happened last time? So the international community is aware and together a course of action should be taken. We aren’t fighting other’s wars anymore remember?

    Assad, like Hussein is a danger to the Free World and to the entire area due to his unpredictable behavior and defiance. So the world needs to squash him. Remember NATO and their new Terror brigade?

    • Retired

      You are right , so where is the UN and NATO forces on this . It’s called let the US suckers do the dirty work like has been since WW2 . Between Syria and North Korea we are sitting on a time bomb while Congress plays Childish games .

      • Tiger

        Trump won’t allow us to be used. NATO and the world knows that. He means it. They will help or we won’t take over the responsibility like they did with NATO Germany, richest country around Europe and they were not paying their dues, like others, using the money for refugees, Trump stopped it and they are paying up now.

        Our allies in the Middle East doing their share and yepper we better get some noise from our European allies or they will get noise from Trump.

        • Retired

          I sure hope so and that Congress does not screw it up for Trump .

  • generalJed

    I have been alive a long time, and, I have seen many dictators like Assad and Saddam Hussein overplay their hand. They get what they deserve in the end, because they behave like depraved wild dogs that have to be put down.

  • Sinnie Kemp

    Could that be a fake report? I don’t believe Assad is that stupid.

    We are living in the era of fake news and fake reports therefore we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion and believe any report especially when it is this critical.

    We have deep state and military industrial complex in many levels of our government. We have to be careful with what we believe.

  • Gotta prop up the petro dollar, funny we are doing ISIS and Al Qaeda’s work for them.

    • Retired

      Highly doubtful this is fake news . If you think it’s fake go over there and live .

  • ForEverADeplorableOne

    Cruise attack it again and end the uncertainty, doubt and confusion.

    • Retired

      Send a drone to Assad with a special package .

      • ForEverADeplorableOne

        Better than a Hallmark card … or the 82nd Airborne Division!

?>

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Google Analytics Alternative