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?

Get George back.
He'll hold hands and skip along with those Saudi perps while working something out. ;-)

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...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

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...

--------------------------

I don't have a clue who "Mint Press News" is.
The author of the report was attributed as being Dale Gavlak.

You didn't answer the question. So, if true, what now?

On 9/3/13 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

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...

--------------------------

I don't have a clue who "Mint Press News" is.
The author of the report was attributed as being Dale Gavlak.

You didn't answer the question. So, if true, what now?




According to Mint Press News, which "broke" this news story:

Clarification: Dale Gavlak assisted in the research and writing process
of this article, but was not on the ground in Syria. Reporter Yahya
Ababneh, with whom the report was written in collaboration, was the
correspondent on the ground in Ghouta who spoke directly with the
rebels, their family members, victims of the chemical weapons attacks
and local residents.

Gavlak is a MintPress News Middle East correspondent who has been
freelancing for the AP as a Amman, Jordan correspondent for nearly a
decade. This report is not an Associated Press article; rather it is
exclusive to MintPress News.


I'll wait for some enterprise reporting from authentic news
organizations, not from a freelancer who is correspondent for a web blog.

I find it hard to believe that a Saudi prince who was his country's
ambassador to the United States, who got a master's at Johns Hopkins,
and who has been a major player in his country is dealing chem weapons
from the bottom of the deck to Syrian rebels. Prince Bandar bin Sultan,
whatever else he is, isn't a traitor to his country like Dick Cheney.

On 9/3/2013 9:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

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...

--------------------------

I don't have a clue who "Mint Press News" is.
The author of the report was attributed as being Dale Gavlak.

You didn't answer the question. So, if true, what now?



Thankfully, O'Bama's chief of staff talked some sense into him. He
agreed to wait till Congress returns before taking any action. Notice he
didn't call them back? I think the poor bugger now realizes all of his
saber rattling was a huge mistake. It's off his shoulders now. Funny how
he's always able to shrug off responsibility.

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 06:58:04 -0400, "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?

Where've you been? This is what Greg and I were discussing last week.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 06:58:04 -0400, "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?

The administration continues to state the evidence shows it was the Assad folks who employed the
weapons. The UN team was specifically *not* tasked to determine who employed the weapons. I wouldn't
be a bit surprised if this were an al Qaeda ploy to get US involvement.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

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.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 06:58:04 -0400, "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.


So, if true, what now?


Where've you been? This is what Greg and I were discussing last week.

John (Gun Nut) H.

-----------------------------------

I was spreading pea stone on horse trails.