Russia and the USA have come to terms over Syria’s surrender of its “chemical” weapons, or so we are told. The political leaders have deftly duped their subjects once again. Note the entire world focus is on “chemical” weapons.
Why is no one addressing “biological” weapons?
There are four weapons of mass destruction : Chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological. Bashar al-Assad received most of his chemical weapons stockpile courtesy of Saddam Hussein when that dictator scurried to hide his stockpile. Despite the naysayers and nannywonkers who berated President Bush for failure to find WMD in Iraq, Saddam certainly had the weapons — he used them on the Kurds.
What our leaders fail to tell us because they want to preserve WMD is that Syria has an ample stash of biological weapons. Chemical weaponry is generally swift. Unless a victim is struck by residual gas, death is quick. Biological weapons on the other hand are insidious. Unleash Ebola on a population and you have prolonged mass writhing agony.
Why are our national and world leaders remaining mum on biological weaponry? TJE