Poking holes in "Syrian Rebels" Claims about Chemical Weapons Use

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Thanks for that Mick, much appreciated. It is a good thread and would have been a shame to lose it as a resource. Apologies for my part in the the impoliteness transgressions.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
You seem intent on following your leaders zeal to apportion blame on the Syrian Govt, (Assad) for the attacks, (and there are a number of them over a time frame (attacks that is... not necessarily by Assad)) on extremely dubious and contradicted evidence, (not least logical evidence). You deny that you are pushing for U.S military action against Syria but your leaders are very clear on what they want to do, (even if it is blatantly illegal), so it is clear why they are pushing the rhetoric and one must logically ask, why are you so keen to apportion blame?

Always so quick to attack the person- why is that Oxy?

Keen to apportion blame? Please highlight where I apportioned any blame.

I simply linked to the UN report- which you claimed to want to see- then highlighted the relevant findings. I made no editorial comments whatsoever...and yet you launch into personal comments.

Why are you so keen to do that?

It has been pretty much acknowledged for some time that chemical weapons have been used but it is entirely unclear as to i) who used them ii) how many were killed iii) how bombing Syrian civilians is an appropriate response for someone else using CW's on them iv) what would be the consequences of missiles blowing up some stores of CW's in terms of both dispersion of gas clouds and/or military responses by not only the Syrians but also Russia, China and Iran.

I do not disagree with any of that.

None of the documents you cited address any of these questions. The cherry picked quotes you use fail to mention that the missiles are old missiles no longer in service and that they may well have been adapted all of which puts the capability well within the means of 'rebel' elements.

Perhaps- could you provide evidence that the missiles are "no longer in service"- its true the Russians do supply Syria with a lot of weapons so...maybe they have some new ones. Is there any evidence of their adaptation- or is that just your speculation? Yet, you did not address the evidence of the azimuths and the "logic" of the rebels being able to fire missiles from inside a Syrian military complex.

Much is made of the 100,000 casualties but hardly any of them would be casualties if the U.S, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey were not funneling the weapons and jihadists to Syria to fight the proxy war.

I think this comment does not reflect an objective recalling of events of the 2.5 year old civil war and the aggressiveness with which the Assad regime attempted to quell the uprising from the beginning with the use of cluster bombs, incendiary bombs, scud missiles etc...
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Always so quick to attack the person- why is that Oxy?
I simply asked a question which you have as usual avoided by answering with another question.
Keen to apportion blame? Please highlight where I apportioned any blame.
So you are not apportioning the blame to Assad's forces when you 'highlight relevant findings' that lead the easily led to believe that it is 'proven' that the missiles were 'Assads missiles, came from Assad held ground, Assad had the chemicals and the 'nice rebels' have neither the chemicals or delivery system nor are they in the right place to launch'. Whilst ignoring counter 'findings' that the 'not so nice rebels', have both the delivery systems and the chemicals but more importantly the motive, to carry out the attacks.

I simply linked to the UN report- which you claimed to want to see- then highlighted the relevant findings. I made no editorial comments whatsoever...and yet you launch into personal comments.
Why are you so keen to do that?
See above.
Oxymoron said:
It has been pretty much acknowledged for some time that chemical weapons have been used but it is entirely unclear as to i) who used them ii) how many were killed iii) how bombing Syrian civilians is an appropriate response for someone else using CW's on them iv) what would be the consequences of missiles blowing up some stores of CW's in terms of both dispersion of gas clouds and/or military responses by not only the Syrians but also Russia, China and Iran.
I do not disagree with any of that.
So on that basis, do you think it appropriate for Obama to bomb/missile/whatever, Syria and it's people? Further, if you do not disagree with i) above, how do you justify concluding that it was Assad's forces that used the CW's?

Perhaps- could you provide evidence that the missiles are "no longer in service"- its true the Russians do supply Syria with a lot of weapons so...maybe they have some new ones. Is there any evidence of their adaptation- or is that just your speculation?

Putin made this clear in an interview which I cannot find at the moment. However I have found a pastor who is obviously upset that Obama has called off the illegal bombings/missileings on Syria and after a short rant, reads what Putin said about the missiles and the 'way to go'. Interesting that the U.S are not one jot interested in investigating who was responsible for the attacks, (having already decided it MUST be the guy they want to get rid of), but Putin wants a proper investigation and a considered international response. How refreshing.


Yet, you did not address the evidence of the azimuths and the "logic" of the rebels being able to fire missiles from inside a Syrian military complex.
I thought you "made no editorial comments whatsoever" about that. Clearly you did because you joined cherry picked parts of two separate reports and came to a conclusion whilst disregarding anything which contradicted your conclusion or do you dispute that?

I think this comment does not reflect an objective recalling of events of the 2.5 year old civil war and the aggressiveness with which the Assad regime attempted to quell the uprising from the beginning with the use of cluster bombs, incendiary bombs, scud missiles etc...

I think my comment was entirely accurate. It is well established that the CIA fomented and aided the 'uprising'. Please back up your claims about Assad using Scud missiles and cluster bombs, even though it is not really relevant to the issue of a proposed U.S attack, being predicated solely on the 'illegal' use of chemical weapons by Assad forces whilst the question of 'what response would Obama use if it was the 'rebels' that used the gas', is deafeningly left unanswered.

Perhaps whilst you are at it, you may like to comment on the recent very large sale by the U.S of cluster bombs to the impeccable dominion of the enlightened state of Saudi Arabia?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
I simply asked a question which you have as usual avoided by answering with another question.

No- you turn the discussion into a personal attack on me. The question doesn't deserve an answer because the question was a trolling question based on nothing more than spite- not an actual case of me apportioning blame.

So you are not apportioning the blame to Assad's forces when you 'highlight relevant findings' that lead the easily led to believe that it is 'proven' that the missiles were 'Assads missiles, came from Assad held ground, Assad had the chemicals and the 'nice rebels' have neither the chemicals or delivery system nor are they in the right place to launch'. Whilst ignoring counter 'findings' that the 'not so nice rebels', have both the delivery systems and the chemicals but more importantly the motive, to carry out the attacks.

Its funny to watch you squirm in face of the facts. The Human Rights Watch put forth evidence of Assad carrying out the attacks. You claimed that evidence was a "joke" and wanted to wait for the UN report. The UN report pretty much said the exact same thing as the HRW and yet now you simply deny deny deny. Its NOT clear the rebels have the capability to deliver such a large payload. Its NOT clear the grade of sarin in the attack in question was the same as the that supposedly in rebel hands. Its not clear- at all- how the rebels could have launched the attack from inside a Syrian military complex...No. I am not apportioning blame- nether is the UN. Just highlighting the facts. However, it IS interesting that you neglect to mention that Assad also has the sarin, the capabilities and the motives as well.

See above.

I did- all I saw was more emotionally charged bias leading you to logic failures.

So on that basis, do you think it appropriate for Obama to bomb/missile/whatever, Syria and it's people? Further, if you do not disagree with i) above, how do you justify concluding that it was Assad's forces that used the CW's?

Do you even read what I write- or just leap to unfounded accusations and spiteful rhetoric? Where did I conclude anything? I have repeatedly made my opinion regarding bombing known- you simply ignore it to continuing your ranting. Its no wonder everyone is putting you on ignore.

Putin made this clear in an interview which I cannot find at the moment.

...and you believe everything Putin says- no questions asked?? Is it possible he has any motivation to want you to believe that the missiles in question are "no longer in service"? What is his evidence? Did he present any?

I thought you "made no editorial comments whatsoever" about that. Clearly you did because you joined cherry picked parts of two separate reports and came to a conclusion whilst disregarding anything which contradicted your conclusion or do you dispute that?

False. I pointed out that you ignored that evidence. To which you respond by accusing me. The UN report also contained the trajectory data. Where in the report was there anything that contradicted that evidence? I most definitely dispute that I have ignored evidence. I offered no opinions or conclusions. In your blind zeal you just make stuff up...

I think my comment was entirely accurate. It is well established that the CIA fomented and aided the 'uprising'. Please back up your claims about Assad using Scud missiles and cluster bombs, even though it is not really relevant to the issue of a proposed U.S attack, being predicated solely on the 'illegal' use of chemical weapons by Assad forces whilst the question of 'what response would Obama use if it was the 'rebels' that used the gas', is deafeningly left unanswered.

Of course, you do...that doesn't make it so. The fact that Assad used scud missiles, incendiary bombs, and cluster bombs is HIGHLY relevant to your belief that "hardly any" of the 100,000 casualties would have occurred if not for the US, Turkey, Jordan et al....its simply an opinion born of blind bias- not facts- you seem to forget that Assad met the initially peaceful protests with tanks and artillery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

As for scuds, cluster bombs and napalm...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/w...ar-developments-assad.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/04/cluster-munitions-syria-use-persists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594


Whether Assad made the attack or not- I do not believe the US should bomb Syria...it will not help and likely make things worse...and its looking increasingly likely that it will not happen.

As for the attack itself- I haven't seen any evidence presented that the rebels actually persecuted this attack...just claims that they have sarin and supposedly used it before...thats not very convincing in regards to this attack. The data from the UN and HRW IS substantive evidence that Assad regime was involved...I am not saying its conclusive or that he did do it. Simply pointing out the current weight of evidence on either side.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
As for scuds, cluster bombs and napalm...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/w...ar-developments-assad.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0


Yeah... Great MSM meme... unbiased sourcing. Lets take that as gospel. 'He musta dunnit cos the pres sez.... ra ra ra go usa usa usa.'

Shame Assad hasn't got any drones and Napalm... that would have been perfectly acceptable... oh perhaps not, I forgot, its only good when Obomber personaly signs off on it.
Perhaps if they hadn't had the influx of U.S funded, trained and equipped Al Qaeda terrorists to deal with, they could have restored order quickly and wouldn't have needed to use scuds, (if they in fact did). The U.S is to blame and most people know it. Also, even the NYT says it was fired against rebels not civilians, which is a damn sight less than can be said for Obombers drones flown by pimple faced kids 3000 miles away who go home to their mommy's after killing people in complete safety all day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boodles

Banned
Banned
It's already seeping into the minds of Millions of Americans that the rebels claimed responsibility. But no one has actually poked holes in the Rebels' story...

I found a blog called http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/2013/09/chemical-weapons-specialists-on-claims.html which raises some interesting points which I highlighted on a new article on my site.

http://hypocrisy-now.com/exposed-mintpressnews-behind-lies-and-alternative-distortions-in-syria/

Lots more holes to this story than the original, don't ya think? I mean, after all, it's being promoted by infowars. Which should be an automatic red flag for everybody!
Well, not necessarily. It would seem to be dubious but that says nothing about the authenticity of any other angle, if you follow me.
I just spent some more time reading this blog, and he rips apart just about every rebel supporting YT video out there. It's definitely worth a looksie! http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/
Seems Mr Moses is just down the road from me, in a not altogether different position in life at this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins
http://www.channel4.com/news/brown-moses-blog-syria-arms-weapons-croatia
http://beta.syriadeeply.org/2013/04/profile-man-brown-moses/#.Uj7bl4pwbJt

Now, more pertinently, here is yesterday's important supporting development, @moderateGOP, with respect to your line on the Mint Press story.

Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak has now denied co-authoring the article, writes Brian Whitaker -

Brian Whitaker also points out that Twitter and Facebook pages, in the name of Dale Gavlak, appeared just after the article in Mint Press News was published but that the Twitter account was curiously deleted shortly after the piece was published. Whitaker wonders whether the Facebook page may be fake. I'm not sure what may have been posted from these pages and therefore to what extent that is relevant. All very curiously cloak and dagger, in any case.

He concludes that if she has now denied co-authoring the story naturally attention must now then turn to the other supposed co-author, Yahya Ababneh, but that he has proved impossible, thus far, to contact via email and social networks, just as it has proved impossible to source any other journalistic content from this gentleman, in either English or Arabic, suggesting it is a pseudonym.

Personally, I wonder why Dale Gavlak has taken this long to clearly and publicly disassociate herself from authorship.

I am at a loss to understand how Whitaker is correct to write that Russia used this story to discredit the 'findings' of the UN weapons inspectors. Chemical weapons were indeed used but not attributed to any party and this story is unrelated. Perhaps he is implying a counter-claim was thrown into the confusion to dissuade conclusive utterances from the UN in terms of culpability.

Brian Whitaker is writing in a personal capacity, in his day job he writes for The Guardian, in England.

I hasten to be clear, this development does not prove the Mint Press News story is baseless, the speedy back-tracking is a matter of professionalism among journalists, the story having initially circulated on the presumption a Associated Press writer had co-authorship.

Nonetheless, objectively speaking, with Gavlak having now denied co-authorship and Yahya Ababneh being 'AWOL', holes are indeed 'poked'. Let's see if it sinks, or floats.

Yahya Ababneh now needs to account for the story. I should imagine he will, within hours. If not, then this is quite suspect. Odd that he has no journalistic presence online, according to Whitaker. Time will tell.​
 
Last edited:

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Okay, so the vibe is now that Yahya Ababneh is not who Mint Press News say he is, but apparently they still do not know or acknowledge this, as of just two hours ago, the official statement, to follow below, gives no indication of this!
 
Last edited:

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Official statement now issued by Mnar Muhawesh, executive director and editor at large for MintPress News

 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
It is now conspiratorially alleged Yahya Ababneh is actually one Yan Barakhat. Included within this emerging theory is a reader comment, allegedly by Barakhat, under an editorial piece by that odious creep handsome and sexually potent (brother to the late Christopher Hitchens) Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail, the most despised celebrated man in Britain (allegedly). Small world, having only just yesterday been discussing a critique of atheism, here on Metabunk, that largely encompassed that family, but that is by the by.

Too conspiratorial and complex to paste the trail from a phone, you have to click and read :)

http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/september/yahya-ababneh-exposed.htm#sthash.hGf3YY10.6dt9niuG.dpbs

Once putting together the various clues, Whitaker concludes:
 
Last edited:

Boodles

Banned
Banned
Peter Hitchen's piece was defiantly counter the general rush to blame al Assad and to go to war (as per Downing St, Paris, the Pentagon, CNN, BBC). He made a glaringly obvious point, which I made here at the time, regarding the queer concurrency of the Egyptian massacre, of hours earlier, being almost legitimised - more entirely forgotten - as all minds rushed to chemicals in Syria and a mounting assumed Syrian government culpability, and, the complete hypocrisy of such:
Well said, Peter, you rebellious old goat stalwart of traditional values.

But it is this particular comment, sitting unobtrusively below Peter Hitchen's piece, that is now being scrutinised:

Source: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...b-syria-shouldnt-we-seek-proof-of-guilt-.html

Is this the co-author of the Mint Press piece? The point is this comment is made just before the Mint Press piece was published, yet the content is identical!
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
U.S are still desperately trying to escalate the problems in Syria itching to launch their missiles on the Syrian people. Obama/Kerry will not rest until they have the whole Country as destroyed as Iraq and Libya.



http://rt.com/news/us-russia-syria-resolution-pressure-202/
http://beta.syriadeeply.org/op-eds/syrias-insurgency-good-guys-bad-guys/#.Uj8PXT_iT9M
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Since when is Dale a girl's name?

So she says she didn't write it or have anything to do with it, they say she's been threatened and that's why she's denying it?
I hope she responds to that.
Intriguing stuff. Why would mintpress have been chosen (if it is a psy-op) to distribute the article? What's its standing?

ETA wiki...

 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So, if I am to understand this correctly, US intelligence stating multiple sources indicate Syrian army rockets perpetrated the chemical weapons attack on Ghouta are... an unemployed dude in a council flat with a laptop in the east midlands of England. Did I get that right?


What are you talking about?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There is a lot of evidence which the western MSM basically ignores.

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-un-resolution-356/

http://rt.com/op-edge/mother-chemical-attack-footage-fraud-509/

02.30 U.S engaged in diplomatic talks but ramping up hostilities on the ground by supplying heavy weapons.

 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
There is a lot of evidence which the western MSM basically ignores.

perhaps...but where is it? To borrow from you in past discussions...what you posted is just political rhetoric and hearsay.

btw- per posting guidelines:

"YouTube Videos must be accompanied by a description of the video, identifying the claim made in it, with time location if longer than 1 minute."
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
perhaps...but where is it? To borrow from you in past discussions...what you posted is just political rhetoric and hearsay.
The Russians gave it to the U.N... inc the U.S... which is a lot more than the U.S did with their 'evidence' which no one but a select few American warmongers have been allowed to see and 'everyone else' has to take their word for it. :eek:
 
Top