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

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.
 
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...
 
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:
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

The conflict initially began as a civil uprising, evolved from initially minor protests, beginning as early as January 2011, as a response to the regional Arab Spring, government corruption, and human rights abuses. Large-scale unrest began on 15 March in the southern city of Daraa, sometimes called the "Cradle of the Revolution", and later spread nation-wide.[102] The government responded to the protests with large arrests, torture of prisoners, police brutality, censorship of events, and some concessions. However, the protests continued to grow. In late-April, Assad began launching large-scale military operations against restive towns and cities. The operations involved the use of tanks, infantry carriers, and artillery, leading to a large number of civilian deaths.[103]
Content from External Source
As for scuds, cluster bombs and napalm...

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

President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have resorted to firing ballistic missiles at rebel fighters inside Syria
Content from External Source
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/04/cluster-munitions-syria-use-persists

In Syria, Human Rights Watch identified 152 separate locations where government forces used at least 204 cluster munitions from July 2012 until June 2013, in 9 of the country’s 14 governorates. Several locations have been repeatedly attacked with cluster munitions. This data provides only an incomplete picture, however, as not all remnants have been recorded on video or by other means. The actual number of cluster munitions used by Syrian government forces is probably higher, Human Rights Watch said.
Content from External Source
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident - an incendiary bomb dropped on to a school playground in the north of the country - which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies. Eyewitnesses describe a fighter jet dropping the device, a low explosion, followed by columns of fire and smoke.
Content from External Source

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

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

President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have resorted to firing ballistic missiles at rebel fighters inside Syria
Content from External Source

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.

I notice the date as well
Published: December 12, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have resorted to firing ballistic missiles at rebel fighters inside Syria, Obama administration officials said Wednesday, escalating a nearly two-year-old civil war as the government struggles to slow the momentum of a gaining insurgency.

Multimedia

Obama to Recognize Syrian Rebels

Graphic
Tracking the Violence in Damascus
Related

Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Enlarge This Image

Narciso Contreras/Associated Press
Free Syrian Army fighters with two bodies they found in the rubble during clashes with government forces in Aleppo on Monday.

Administration officials said that over the last week, Assad forces for the first time had fired at least six Soviet-designed Scud missiles in the latest bid to push back rebels who have consistently chipped away at the government’s military superiority.
Content from External Source
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.

Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
  • RC
  • Pompano Beach FL
Reading several comments, it’s clear to me that several commenters are aware of only one side of the Syrian story, and this includes the Facebook commenters (verified), especially them. Seemingly, they and others are content with the NYT and the ilk being their sole source of reporting on Syria.

In the beginning of this conflict, I admit that I tended to lean towards believing the reporting that Assad was murdering innocent civilians and some of the other memes concerning his regime.

But something didn’t compute, smell right. I’ve been around the block (twice), and have seen governments, groups, media, and individuals lie and spin and manipulate to achieve their ends.

At the bottom of my comment, I’ll link to an article from last Feb. I’d read several similar articles before Feb, but this one cannot help but to compel anyone of average intelligence to question the reporting re Syria by MSM. The resulting comments are enlightening as well, and the article has links that leads one down paths that are enlightening.

For those that desire to have a broader view of Syria, I urge you to read the article. For those that are content with parroting MSM memes, they won’t link to it anyway. It’s raises too many questions, uncomfortable questions. Reading only what the mouthpieces (MSM) of the Syrian MB and the jihadist FSA and other Jihadist groups is more comfottable.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/4645

“Perception is 100 percent of politics,” the old adage goes. Say something three, five, seven times, and you start to believe it in the same way you “know” aspirin is good for the heart.

Sometimes though, perception is a dangerous thing. In the dirty game of politics, it is the perception – not the facts of an issue – that invariably wins the day.

In the case of the raging conflict over Syria, the one fundamental issue that motors the entire international debate on the crisis is the death toll and its corollary: the Syrian casualty list.

The “list” has become widely recognized – if not specifically, then certainly when the numbers are bandied about: 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 – sometimes more. These are not mere numbers; they represent dead Syrians.

But this is where the dangers of perception begin. There are many competing Syrian casualty lists with different counts – how does one, for instance gauge if X is an accurate number of deaths? How have the deaths been verified? Who verifies them and do they have a vested interest? Are the dead all civilians? Are they pro-regime or anti-regime civilians? Do these lists include the approximately 2,000 dead Syrian security forces? Do they include members of armed groups? How does the list-aggregator tell the difference between a civilian and a plain-clothes militia member?
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 -
The mystery surrounding an internet article cited by Russia to cast doubt on the findings of UN weapons inspectors in Syria took a new twist yesterday when one of the alleged authors denied having written the article.

The article, headed "Syrians in Ghouta claim Saudi-supplied rebels behind chemical attack", was originally published by an American website, Mint Press News, under the names of two journalists, Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh. It reported uncorroborated claims by anonymous sources in Syria that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia supplied some of the rebel fighters with chemical weapons which the rebels then handled "improperly", causing mass deaths on August 21.

Yesterday, Dale Gavlak, a respected freelance journalist who is a frequent correspondent for the Associated Press, issued the following statement:

"Mint Press News incorrectly used my byline for an article it published on August 29, 2013 alleging chemical weapons usage by Syrian rebels. Despite my repeated requests, made directly and through legal counsel, they have not been willing to issue a retraction stating that I was not the author. Yahya Ababneh is the sole reporter and author of the Mint Press News piece. To date, Mint Press News has refused to act professionally or honestly in regards to disclosing the actual authorship and sources for this story.
"I did not travel to Syria, have any discussions with Syrian rebels, or do any other reporting on which the article is based. The article is not based on my personal observations and should not be given credence based on my journalistic reputation. Also, it is false and misleading to attribute comments made in the story as if they were my own statements."

Meanwhile, another website – antiwar.com – which collaborated with Mint Press in circulating the story, issued an apology. It said:

"We originally linked to [the article], but then reprinted [it] on our site at the request of Mint Press because traffic on their site was crashing their server. The validity of the story was primarily based on the fact that the supposed co-author (Dale Gavlak) is a reporter for Associated Press."

Source: http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/sep...ery-deepens.htm#sthash.su2l4Tkg.aqjiKDdz.dpbs
Content from External Source

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

Statement:

"Thank you for reaching out to me in regards to statements made by Dale Gavlak alleging MintPress for incorrectly attributing our exclusive report titled: “Syrians in Goutha claim Saudi-supplied rebels behind chemical attacks.”Gavlak pitched this story to MintPress on August 28th and informed her editors and myself that her colleague Yahya Ababneh was on the ground in Syria. She said Ababneh conducted interviews with rebels, their family members, Ghouta residents and doctors that informed him through various interviews that the Saudis had supplied the rebels with chemical weapons and that rebel fighters handled the weapons improperly setting off the explosions.

When Yahya had returned and shared the information with her, she stated that she confirmed with several colleagues and Jordanian government officials that the Saudis have been supplying rebels with chemical weapons, but as her email states, she says they refused to go on the record.

Gavlak wrote the article in it’s entirety as well as conducted the research. She filed her article on August 29th and was published on the same day.

Dale is under mounting pressure for writing this article by third parties. She notified MintPress editors and myself on August 30th and 31st via email and phone call, that third parties were placing immense amounts of pressure on her over the article and were threatening to end her career over it. She went on to tell us that she believes this third party was under pressure from the head of the Saudi Intelligence Prince Bandar himself, who is alleged in the article of supplying the rebels with chemical weapons.

On August 30th, Dale asked MintPress to remove her name completely from the byline because she stated that her career and reputation was at risk. She continued to say that these third parties were demanding her to disassociate herself from the article or these parties would end her career.

On August 31st, I notified Dale through email that I would add a clarification that she was the writer and researcher for the article and that Yahya was the reporter on the ground, but did let Gavlak know that we would not remove her name as this would violate the ethics of journalism.

We are aware of the tremendous pressure that Dale and some of our other journalists are facing as a result of this story, and we are under the same pressure as a result to discredit the story. We are unwilling to succumb to those pressures for MintPress holds itself to the highest journalistic ethics and reporting standards.

Yahya has recently notified me that the Saudi embassy contacted him and threatened to end his career if he did a follow up story on who carried out the most recent chemical weapons attack and demanded that he stop doing media interviews in regards to the subject.

We hold Dale Gavlak in the highest esteem and sympathize with her for the pressure she is receiving, but removing her name from the story would not be honest journalism and therefore, as stated before, we are not willing to remove her name from the article.

We are prepared and may release all emails and communications made between MintPress and Dale Gavlak, and even Yahya to provide further evidence of what was provided to you in this statement."

http://t.co/IPnfwBaqpe
Content from External Source
 
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:

If Yahya Ababneh and Yan Barakat are indeed the same person, the question arises as to why Mint Press called him Ababneh rather than Barakat (which is the name he appears to have used for his other writing). If there were fears for his safety it would have been far better to be up-front about it and declare the use of a pseudonym.

With hindsight, this may also explain why Mint Press was so insistent on including Dale Gavlak's name in the joint by-line.

As far as the most crucial part of the article is concerned, we are also left wondering what to make of Barakat's statement that he was alerted to the "rebel weapons" tale by a Russian who befriended him in Damascus.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
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:
If you want absolutely proven atrocities, all you need to do is look at Egypt, where the new military government, lawlessly installed by violence, has openly engaged in several severe massacres of ‘its own people’, in most cases unarmed and defenceless. Yet because these massacres were done with bullets, or for some other reason I can’t fathom, no cruise-missile attacks on Cairo are currently proposed. Ask yourself about this. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. Known, undeniable mass-murders, of which there is no doubt, and whose culprits are known and undisputed, bring no outrage. An alleged mass-murder, whose culprit is not proven, is the subject of huge outrage.

I cannot say how many times I have heard people assert that there is ‘little doubt’ the Syrian government used chemical weapons - in fact I just heard this tricky phrase on the BBC’s radio news.

‘Little doubt'?
Content from External Source
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:


The war is coming soon. Jordan was threatened by the Syrian government this time.

Who used the chemical weapons?
The answer is neither the Syrian regime, nor the rebels. This is the game of Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi intelligence chief. He gave these weapons to the rebels via tunnels but they did not have enough information about them. Almost all of the rebels handling the weapons were killed because they used them incorrectly.

Many people inside the village were really angry with Jabhat Al Nazrah (an Al Qaeda associate in Syria).

The Assad regime so far has not let anyone from the UN visit the village to investigate. I will not be surprised if the Assad regime will use this case to support its situation in the eyes of Russia and Iran. The first country who suggested to fight Assad was France and Saudi Arabia were ready to pay for the weapons.

The Assad regime will get his army ready with many Iranian soldiers. Some old men arrived in Damascus from Russia and one of them became friends with me. He told me that they have evidence that it was the rebels who used the weapons.

The US people will pay the price again.

No one cares about the children who were killed in this way. The people are really concerned about who used the chemical weapons in Syria. If in these days it is believed that Assad used chemical weapons, then there will be a devastating war including the USA, France, Britain and Arab countries. After some years when they have paid the price to kill the Syrian people, they will say that they are sorry but it was actually Al Qaeda who deployed the weapons. Already they know that this is the game of Bandar bin Sultan.

Posted by: Yan Barakat | 28 August 2013 at 09:31 PM]
Content from External Source
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:
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/
The US is pushing Russia into approving a UN resolution that would allow for military intervention in Syria, in exchange for American support of Syria’s accession to OPCW, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

“Our American partners are starting to blackmail us: ‘If Russia does not support a resolution under Chapter 7, then we will withdraw our support for Syria’s entry into the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). This is a complete departure from what I agreed with Secretary of State John Kerry',” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Channel 1's Sunday Time program.

Chapter 7 of the UN charter would allow for potential military intervention in Syria.

Western countries blinded by 'Assad must go' attitude
The head of Russia’s Foreign Ministry went on to say he was surprised by the West’s “negligent” approach to the conflict.

“Our partners are blinded by an ideological mission for regime change,” said Lavrov. “They cannot admit they have made another mistake.”

Slamming the West’s intervention in Libya and Iraq, the foreign minister stated that military intervention could only lead to a catastrophe in the region. Moreover, he stressed that if the West really was interested in a peaceful solution to the conflict that has raged for over two years, they would now be pushing for Syria’s entry into the OPCW in the first place, not for the ouster of President Bashar Assad.

“I am convinced that the West is doing this to demonstrate that they call the shots in the Middle East. This is a totally politicized approach,” said Lavrov.

The Russian foreign minister pointed out that in the case of a military scenario, militants would come to power and Syria would no longer be a secular state. Up to three quarters “of these guys are Jihadists,” including the most radical groups such as Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, who want to create an Islamic Caliphate in Syria and in neighboring territories, Lavrov said.

If our western partners think at least two steps ahead, they cannot but understand it,” Lavrov noted.

As to why the West would want that, Moscow has so far received no clear answer, but hears “mantras” on the necessity to promote democracy and protect human rights, said the minister. That is important, but “responsible politicians should be guided not only by that. Not to care about stability in a key world region is absolutely irresponsible,” he added.
Content from External Source
http://beta.syriadeeply.org/op-eds/syrias-insurgency-good-guys-bad-guys/#.Uj8PXT_iT9M
Like it or not, groups on the more extreme end of the spectrum, particularly those affiliated with al Qaeda, have proven remarkably adept at spreading their military resources across large swathes of territory, joining battles at the pivotal moment, and exploiting their superior organizational structures to establish political control and influence over territory. While some moderate groups have also presented tight levels of organization and command and control, jihadist and Salafist insurgent groups have by and large been notably more effective in this regard.
The conflict itself also cannot be presented as a single dynamic or theater of battle. Instead, as the number of involved groups has proliferated and the armed conflict is now well into its third year, countless unique and sometimes interdependent theaters have emerged, each with its own distinctive characteristics and inter-group dynamics. While all micro theaters see distinctly local insurgent groups operate, nearly all of them involve larger single militant organizations or multi-group alliances which have come to operate on a more national basis, hence the countless unique dynamics across the country.

Terminology is also a hugely tricky issue. Technically speaking, a very large portion of rebel fighters in Syria would identify themselves as “Islamists” fighting a “jihad.” But contrary to popular Western interpretation, this does not make them “extremists” and certainly not “al Qaeda.” As has often been the case in complex and bloody sub-state conflicts, those involved — both directly (insurgents) and indirectly (civilians) — often turn to religion as a support mechanism. The rapid proliferation of Islamic names for many of the original Free Syrian Army (FSA) units back in 2011 illustrates this clearly

The most “extreme” portion of the insurgency is represented by the two al Qaeda-affiliated groups: Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Combined, these groups command an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 fighters, distributed in at least 11 of Syria’s 14 governorates. Both have pledged bay’a (or allegiance) to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri and are explicitly hostile to the West. In addition to this figure, there exist at least 10 smaller al Qaeda-like militant groups in the north and east of the country, whose combined strength likely numbers between 2,000 and 3,000 fighters.

The most notable addition to the likely “bad guys” list is Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiya (HASI) and its Syrian Islamic Front (SIF) coalition. A conservative estimate of SIF’s total strength (which is dominated heavily by Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiya) is 15,000 to 20,000 fighters, distributed across 11 governorates. While its forces coordinate in operations across the country on a daily basis with Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS, its political charter, published in February, explicitly calls for an Islamic state and rejects the concept of democracy due to its man-made nature.

So that’s potentially between 24,000 and 33,000 “bad guys,” or 33 to 34 percent of the insurgency — already more than the 15 to 25 percent cited on September 4.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
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...

Mint Press News was founded in January 2012 by Mnar A. Muhawesh, a Minnesota-born daughter of Palestinian immigrants, and journalism graduate of St. Cloud State University. MPN said it was a for-profit “regular news organization,” with an initial three-year break-even business plan based on advertising.[1] In January 2012 MPN's investors were said to be unnamed "retired businesspeople" — described by MinnPost as "unfortunate for a journalism operation fighting alongside people seeking transparency."[1] A "key adviser" of MPN is the editor's father-in-law Odeh Muhawesh, a businessman and adjunct theology professor at the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic liberal arts university in the Twin Cities.[1][3]

In August 2013, an MPN article bylined to MPN contributors Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh reported that Syrian rebels and local residents in Ghouta, Syria alleged in interviews that the Al-Nusra Front was responsible for the chemical weapons incidents in Ghouta; those interviewed claimed that weapons had been delivered to untrained fighters and "some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions."[4] Gavlak later told Brown Moses Blog that she had not been involved in writing the article, saying that "Despite my repeated requests, made directly and through legal counsel, they have not been willing to issue a retraction stating that I was not the author. Yahya Ababneh is the sole reporter and author of the Mint Press News piece."[5] Gavlak and at least one other MPN contributor ended their relationships with MPN.[6] The MPN report had been "widely circulated"[7] and cited among others by Military.com, the Voice of Russia, Press TV, Spanish newspaper ABC, ConsortiumNews.com and InfoWars.[8][9][10][11][12] Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting initially characterized the article as "honest about the limits of its knowledge", but after Gavlak's comments dissociating herself from the story wrote that "with the allegations of unprofessional behavior on the part of Mint Press News, there's little reason to take the Mint Press story seriously."[13] Bridget Johnson on PJ Media had previously described MPN as having "anti-U.S. and anti-Saudi links, as well as ties to the Occupy movement."[14] Louis Proyect looked at some of the political attitudes of 'key adviser' Odeh Muhawesh on his blog.[15]
Content from External Source
 
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?
 
There is a lot of evidence which the western MSM basically ignores.

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

Russia has enough evidence to assert that homemade sarin was used on August 21 in a chemical attack near Damascus, the same type but in higher concentration than in an Aleppo incident earlier this year, Russian FM Sergey Lavrov said.

“On the occasion of the incident in the vicinity of Aleppo on March 19, 2013 when the United Nations, under the pressure of some Security Council members, didn’t respond to the request of the Syrian government to send inspectors to investigate, Russia, at the request of the Syrian government, investigated that case, and this report, i.e. the results of this investigation are broadly available to the Security Council and publicly,” Lavrov said.

“The main conclusion is that the type of sarin used in that incident was homemade. We also have evidence to assert that the type of sarin used on August 21 was the same, only of higher concentration.”

The minister said he had recently presented his US counterpart John Kerry with the latest compilation of evidence, which was an analysis of publicly available information.
Content from External Source
http://rt.com/op-edge/mother-chemical-attack-footage-fraud-509/

Mother Agnes: I have carefully studied the footage, and I will present a written analysis on it a bit later. I maintain that the whole affair was a frame-up. It had been staged and prepared in advance with the goal of framing the Syrian government as the perpetrator.

The key evidence is that Reuters made these files public at 6.05 in the morning. The chemical attack is said to have been launched between 3 and 5 o’clock in the morning in Guta. How is it even possible to collect a dozen different pieces of footage, get more than 200 kids and 300 young people together in one place, give them first aid and interview them on camera, and all that in less than three hours? Is that realistic at all? As someone who works in the news industry, you know how long all of it would take.

The bodies of children and teenagers we see in that footage – who were they? What happened to them? Were they killed for real? And how could that happen ahead of the gas attack? Or, if they were not killed, where did they come from? Where are their parents? How come we don’t see any female bodies among all those supposedly dead children?

I am not saying that no chemical agent was used in the area – it certainly was. But I insist that the footage that is now being peddled as evidence had been fabricated in advance. I have studied it meticulously, and I will submit my report to the UN Human Rights Commission based in Geneva.

RT: Recently you’ve visited Latakia and the adjacent areas, you’ve talked to the eyewitnesses to the massacre of civilians carried out in Latakia by Jabhat al-Nusra. What can you tell us about it?

MA: What I want to ask first of all is how the international community can ignore the brutal killing spree in Latakia on Laylat al-Qadr early in the morning of August 5, an attack that affected more than 500 people, including children, women and the elderly. They were all slaughtered. The atrocities committed exceed any scale. But there was close to nothing about it in the international mass media. There was only one small article in “The Independent”, I believe.
Content from External Source
02.30 U.S engaged in diplomatic talks but ramping up hostilities on the ground by supplying heavy weapons.

 
Last edited:
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."
 
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:
 
Back
Top