On 9/3/2013 12:28 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:36:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/3/13 6:58 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
There were reports last weekend that Syrian rebels admitted to Dale
Gavlak, a respected middle east correspondent for the Associated Press
and the Public Broadcasting Network, that they (the rebels) were
responsible for the chemical gas attacks on August 21st.

The rebels claim that the chemical weapons were provided by Prince
Bandar bin Sultan (the intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia) and were the
result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling and not knowing that
they were chemical weapons.

The rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to
handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as
though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda
offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t
know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical
weapons.”


So, if true, what now?








Reports from "Mint Press News..."?

In an exclusive report for Mint Press News, interviews with Syrians in
the location of the chemical attacks seems to point to direct Saudi
involvement in providing the chemical weapons for the attack.

And it doesn't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime...


“Reuters was not able to verify the accounts independently and they were denied by Syrian state
television, which said they were disseminated deliberately to distract a team of United Nations
chemical weapons experts which arrived three days ago.”

“Logically, it would make little sense for the Syrian government to employ chemical agents at such a
time, particularly given the relatively close proximity of the targeted towns (to the U.N. team),”
said Charles Lister, analysts at IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center.”

Who benefits from staging a chemical weapons event in Syria? Answer: the opposition. The West’s has
already announced it ambiguous “red line”, stating that its policy will be to intervene militarily
if either side is thought to be using chemical weapons in Syria – which makes it all to easy for the
opposition to get what they want in the end – which is a Libya-style military coalition with NATO,
and perhaps Israel, in order to take power in the country.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle35925.htm



John (Gun Nut) H.


Dead on, but our POTUS is going to war anyway....