|
Who done it?
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? |
Who done it?
Get George back.
He'll hold hands and skip along with those Saudi perps while working something out. ;-) |
Who done it?
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... |
Who done it?
"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? |
Who done it?
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. |
Who done it?
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. |
Who done it?
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 didnt tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didnt 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! |
Who done it?
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 didnt tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didnt 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! |
Who done it?
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 didnt tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didnt 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 Janes Terrorism and Insurgency Center. Who benefits from staging a chemical weapons event in Syria? Answer: the opposition. The Wests 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! |
Who done it?
"John H" wrote in message ... 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. |
Who done it?
On 9/3/2013 12:21 PM, John H wrote:
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 didnt tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didnt 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. You do the math.. The only logical reason for Assad to use them would be to test the world reaction, and having found out we will do nothing, he would be using them more and more.... After all, he is at war... If AlQueda used them as a false flag op on their own people which we know they do, it would be to hope to blame it on Assad, but because of the scrutiny, they would not be able to continue to use them.... Do the math.. AlQueda did it... False Flag Operation... |
Who done it?
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 didnt tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didnt 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 Janes Terrorism and Insurgency Center. Who benefits from staging a chemical weapons event in Syria? Answer: the opposition. The Wests 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.... |
Who done it?
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 14:13:33 UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 9/3/2013 12:21 PM, John H wrote: 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. You do the math.. The only logical reason for Assad to use them would be to test the world reaction, and having found out we will do nothing, he would be using them more and more.... After all, he is at war... If AlQueda used them as a false flag op on their own people which we know they do, it would be to hope to blame it on Assad, but because of the scrutiny, they would not be able to continue to use them.... Do the math.. AlQueda did it... False Flag Operation... Wow... too bad Johnny didn't have your brilliant military mind on his staff 40 years ago. Things might have gone better for him and his Army. |
Who done it?
On 9/3/13 2:03 PM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 14:13:33 UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote: On 9/3/2013 12:21 PM, John H wrote: 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. You do the math.. The only logical reason for Assad to use them would be to test the world reaction, and having found out we will do nothing, he would be using them more and more.... After all, he is at war... If AlQueda used them as a false flag op on their own people which we know they do, it would be to hope to blame it on Assad, but because of the scrutiny, they would not be able to continue to use them.... Do the math.. AlQueda did it... False Flag Operation... Wow... too bad Johnny didn't have your brilliant military mind on his staff 40 years ago. Things might have gone better for him and his Army. It's heart-warming that the two outstanding racists here, Herring and Ingerfool, line up on Syria, too. |
Who done it?
|
Who done it?
On 9/3/2013 2:03 PM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 14:13:33 UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote: On 9/3/2013 12:21 PM, John H wrote: 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. You do the math.. The only logical reason for Assad to use them would be to test the world reaction, and having found out we will do nothing, he would be using them more and more.... After all, he is at war... If AlQueda used them as a false flag op on their own people which we know they do, it would be to hope to blame it on Assad, but because of the scrutiny, they would not be able to continue to use them.... Do the math.. AlQueda did it... False Flag Operation... Wow... too bad Johnny didn't have your brilliant military mind on his staff 40 years ago. Things might have gone better for him and his Army. Does it make you feel cool to dismiss the honorable service to a man's country? Either way, me and more than half the congress are not too far from each other on this, only difference is I can come right out and say it. You, you have nothing to add ever but name calling. I suppose you don't even realize that with each and every post you say a lot more about yourself, then you say about me.... LOL! |
Who done it?
In your case it's more like disservice to your country.
Get a real job, pay your back taxes and creditors and then come discuss doing a service to your country. |
Who done it?
On 9/3/2013 9:02 PM, True North wrote:
In your case it's more like disservice to your country. Get a real job, pay your back taxes and creditors and then come discuss doing a service to your country. Was that advice to Harry? |
Who done it?
|
Who done it?
|
Who done it?
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Do you mean the way you righties dismiss the service of John Kerry? ------------------------------- John Kerry created a lot of enemies when he returned from his brief military service. Many people, including myself, feel his service was an arranged stint to further enable his political ambitions that he has harbored since his teen years. He is not generally liked in MA but has built a political base of support that keeps him being elected, much like Ted Kennedy did. I had a personal engagement with him and his office years ago that further confirmed my belief that his "support" for fellow vets is (or was) a bunch of bull****. That all said, I am somewhat impressed so far with his performance as Secretary of State. I think in 6 months he has grasped and has had more positive influence in global issues than Hillary accomplished in four years. |
Who done it?
|
Who done it?
True North wrote:
In your case it's more like disservice to your country. Get a real job, pay your back taxes and creditors and then come discuss doing a service to your country. Harry isn't interested in paying anyone back. |
Who done it?
On 9/6/2013 10:17 PM, Earl wrote:
True North wrote: In your case it's more like disservice to your country. Get a real job, pay your back taxes and creditors and then come discuss doing a service to your country. Harry isn't interested in paying anyone back. Why is Donnie ragging on Harry? I thought they were joined at the hip. |
Who done it?
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 08:46:04 UTC-3, Hank wrote:
On 9/6/2013 10:17 PM, Earl wrote: True North wrote: In your case it's more like disservice to your country. Get a real job, pay your back taxes and creditors and then come discuss doing a service to your country. Harry isn't interested in paying anyone back. Why is Donnie ragging on Harry? I thought they were joined at the hip. Ho ho ho! Please stop... your gems of wit and humour are killing me! |
Who done it?
On 9/7/2013 7:46 AM, Hank wrote:
On 9/6/2013 10:17 PM, Earl wrote: True North wrote: In your case it's more like disservice to your country. Get a real job, pay your back taxes and creditors and then come discuss doing a service to your country. Harry isn't interested in paying anyone back. Why is Donnie ragging on Harry? I thought they were joined at the hip. He's just ****ing on everybody.. it's ok though until someone ****es back. don will be ok here until we hit a subject where he knows more than "the judges" here, (not likely any time soon), once you pull the curtain back, you have made an enemy of the control freaksss... |
Who done it?
|
Who done it?
Hank wrote:
On 9/6/2013 10:17 PM, Earl wrote: True North wrote: In your case it's more like disservice to your country. Get a real job, pay your back taxes and creditors and then come discuss doing a service to your country. Harry isn't interested in paying anyone back. Why is Donnie ragging on Harry? I thought they were joined at the hip. They are joined in some fashion! |
Who done it?
On 9/7/2013 10:20 PM, Earl wrote:
Hank wrote: On 9/6/2013 10:17 PM, Earl wrote: True North wrote: In your case it's more like disservice to your country. Get a real job, pay your back taxes and creditors and then come discuss doing a service to your country. Harry isn't interested in paying anyone back. Why is Donnie ragging on Harry? I thought they were joined at the hip. They are joined in some fashion! Wink! Got it. A slip joint. ;-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com