Appallingly, as this story reveals, Syria apparently tested chemical weapons on inhabitants of Sudan in June, killing dozens of people:

‘Syrian officers were reported to have met in May with Sudanese military leaders in a Khartoum suburb to discuss the possibility of improving cooperation between their armies. According to Die Welt, the Syrians had suggested close cooperation on developing chemical weapons, and it was proposed that the arms be tested on the rebel SPLA, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, in the south. But given that the rebels were involved in peace talks, the newspaper continued, the Sudanese government proposed testing the arms on people in Darfur.’

Apart from the unspeakable fact of this atrocity, and the extra dimension of horror this adds to the already dreadful jihadi campaign of mass murder in Sudan, does this not have a certain ring of familiarity about it? After all, students of actual history rather than the propaganda we are being fed will recall that it was in Sudan that al Qaeda and Iraq forged their links.

And how about this:

‘The United States has accused Syria of trying to acquire materials and the know-how to develop chemical weapons and claims that Sudan has been seeking to improve its capability to produce them for many years.’

Is this not why Saddam was toppled? Syria is similarly a rogue state with a history of terrorism. Accusing Syria is all very well. But what is the US -- whoever wins the Presidential election -- going to do about it?

Posted by melanie at September 20, 2004