Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies

[Lenin1986]

NEW YORK – As the U.S. considers a response to what it calls a chemical weapon attack by Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime that killed hundreds of civilians, reliable Middle Eastern sources say they have evidence the culprits actually were the rebel forces trying to take over the government.

Secretary of State John Kerry accused the Assad government Monday of covering up the use of chemical weapons in “a cowardly crime” and a “moral obscenity” that shocked the world’s conscience. Kerry claimed the Obama administration had “undeniable” evidence “that the Assad government was culpable in the use of chemical weapons on civilians” in the Aug. 21 attack in Damascus suburbs.

Reports that the Obama administration is considering a military strike against the Assad government continued to circulate Monday. Meanwhile, U.N. weapon inspectors in Syria were fired upon by snipers as they attempted to investigate the site of the Aug. 21 attack.

Assad has rejected charges that his government forces used chemical weapons as “preposterous” and “completely politicized,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

He argues Syrian forces were in the targeted area.

“How is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located?” Assad asked in the interview with Izvestia, according to a translation provided by Syria’s official news agency and published by the Los Angeles Times.

“This is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicized and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.”

Rebel attack?

With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.

A video posted on YouTube, embedded below, shows Free Syrian Army, or FSA, rebel forces launching a Sarin gas attack on a Syrian village.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-sho...j2xi4TCO4tU.99

[Red Commissar]

Do you have a better source than WorldNetDaily?

[blake 3:17]

WND has some interesting content, but it's wacked out in general.

[Taters]

Uh, is there any reason you're posting an article from a right-wing conspiracy site?
On the other hand, I do enjoy the reminders to restock my fallout bunker, and I hear Comrade Obama's coup is well under way.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/syrian...ebels-says-un/

As the Syrian revolt continues to tear the country apart, the international community has been eager to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even as it became clear that the rebels do not, in fact, represent a popular uprising against the oppression of the Assad regime. According to UN diplomat Carla del Ponte, however, it appears that the recent chemical weapons attack, in April, was carried out by the Syrian rebels and not the regime, as it had been widely assumed. Speaking to a Swiss television channel, del Ponte said that there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels had carried out the attack. She also said UN investigators had seen no evidence of the Syrian army using chemical weapons, but that further investigation was needed.

A spokesman for the rebels denied responsibility for the most recent attack, which allegedly involved the deployment of sarin nerve gas. He pointed out that the Free Syrian Army does not possess the missiles or shells necessary to deliver the chemical agent. Sarin gas, however, can be delivered in a number of ways. Additionally, while the rebels claim that the chemical agent was delivered by missiles or artilery, there is no evidence of a missile strike or shelling in any of the many videos that have been uploaded to the internet in the wake of the alleged attack.

After swift initial progress in the more than two-year-old conflict, the rebel advance was stalled as Lebanese terror group Hezbollah sent fighters to the regime’s aid. Whilst a number of towns have been taken and then retaken by each side, Assad’s forces have gradually gained the upper hand. With his army making gains and the eyes of the world upon him, it seems unlikely that the Syrian President would risk carrying out a chemical attack – particularly against an urban area. The Syrian government has flatly denied responsibility for this latest alleged chemical weapons attack and although not widely reported in the western media, there is broad suspicion that it was, indeed, carried out by the rebels. Ultimately, it may prove impossible for UN inspectors to determine who was responsible for the incident. Further, their investigation may be curtailed by the seemingly imminent military action – possibly in the form of cruise missile strikes – by the United States and the United Kingdom.

US President Obama has sent out mixed messages, regarding his intentions towards Syria; whilst he has stated that the US would not take military action against Syria without a UN mandate, it appears that preparations for an attack are already well underway, with American and British naval forces massing in the region. There is widespread speculation that strikes could be carried out within a week, despite strong and repeated warnings from both Russia and Iran, as well as the Syrian regime itself.

One of the most ominous repercussions of US intervention against the Syrian government is the possibility that Iran and it’s surrogate in Lebanon, Hezbollah, will launch strikes against Israel, in retaliation. This, in turn, could lead to a regional war, with Russia and the US lined up on opposing sides.

The United States government has been quick to condemn the Syrian government for the latest chemical weapons attack. Now that much of the evidence suggests it may have been carried out by the al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels, President Obama should remember that he, along with his supporters and political allies, devoted much time to condemning his predecessor for leading the US into war based on questionable intelligence.



UPDATE: This article was updated to clarify one or two points that some of our readers found misleading: The chemical attack earlier this year was widely blamed on the Syrian regime. It is this attack that the UN now concludes was carried out by Syrian rebels. It appears unlikely – for a number of reasons – that the most recent August 21st attack was carried out by government forces – despite the rush to judgement within the international community – although this has yet to be fully determined. It is clear that both sides in the Syrian conflict have the means to use chemical weapons and it would be misguided to assume that either side has a moral objection to such attacks.

As Jean Pascal Zanders, formerly of the European Union Institute for Security Studies, has pointed out ”In fact, we – the public – know very little beyond the observation of outward symptoms of asphyxiation and possible exposure to neurotoxicants, despite the mass of images and film footage. For the West’s credibility, I think that governments should await the results of the U.N. investigation.”

An Editorial by Graham J Noble

[Rusty Shackleford]

Id say this is pretty fucking credible.

+ YouTube Video

[Red Commissar]

http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/syrian...ebels-says-un/

Id say this is pretty fucking credible.

+ YouTube Video

Aren't these referring to the events in April-May though?

[Rusty Shackleford]

yes. but it dispells the myth to some that the rebels are all jolly good fun loving people and the government is hell bent on murdering everyone.



That and its important to bring this up in opposing intervention because the whole justification is built around the government using chem weapons but it is more than likely that the rebels have in the past and its a possibility that the recent uses were also rebel actions, not government actions.

[tuwix]

Rebel attack?

But what's the difference who attacked? If US Governement want to attack anyone, they find an excuse. And there is no matter is it true or false.

[Rusty Shackleford]

But what's the difference who attacked? If US Governement want to attack anyone, they find an excuse. And there is no matter is it true or false.

popular opinion is something to win. not government opinion.

[ANTIFA GATE-9]

If US Governement want to attack anyone, they find an excuse. And there is no matter is it true or false.

What profit is there for the US goverment to attack?going into another war will cost them a lot but I doubt they are going in just to kill Assad.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

it is highly likely that there have been some chemical attacks by the rebels.

It exposes the folly of US thinking, but that's not really too difficult.

It also exposes the folly of those backing one side or the other in this conflict - how can any communist with any sort of conscience back either the rebels who will mis-rule Syria back into the dark ages with their barbarism, or Assad, who is doing the same now?

[Orange Juche]

rebel attack?

it's a trap!!!!!!

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

What profit is there for the US goverment to attack?going into another war will cost them a lot but I doubt they are going in just to kill Assad.

If it's 'just' a case of bombing / long-range strikes on specific targets, it could be politically motivated for Obama (appearance as a strong Commander in Chief, showing that the US is still the leader of the 'free' world / world police). Can't live off the Osama killing forever, needs another noble firework display to justify is Nobel Peace Prize.

[tuwix]

What profit is there for the US goverment to attack?

For US government none, but for their sponors from military industrial complex huge.

[Rss]

It's interesting how that BBC clip that Rusty provided has barely over 2000 views but Obomber videos have tens of thousands of views. Information warfare at it's finest.

For US government none, but for their sponors from military industrial complex huge.

One Tomahawk cruise missile costs way over one million dollars and those things have limited shelf life. Gotta get those gubmint orders, right?

[Rusty Shackleford]

I was thinking this too, a lot of this must also be about cycling out old munitions. lots of aid to egypt is already handled munitions (thought not fired) so it is considered used by the US. Things like Missiles and Bombs though need some use. this is, im sure, of almost no importance for consideration though by politicians.

also, oil is hardly a factor besides the fact that prices are skyrocketing right now which is benefitting the monarchies and could even be bolstering the Russian and Venezuelan economy in the short run

Im not exactly sure why Turkey is so into the war especially since rebels were caught with plans to attack a Turkish town with chemical weapons earlier this yea.






as for the video, the possibility of a war still only has 9% support.

[khad]

Lost in the chatter, or something interesting I found as a throwaway remark in one of the NYTimes articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/wo...yria.html?_r=0

As Mr. Cameron ran into difficulties, the Syrian government, which has denied accusations by a range of Western and Arab countries that it used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack, moved abruptly to prolong the inspectors’ visit, announcing that it had evidence of three previously unreported chemical weapons assaults that it said had been carried out by insurgents and should be investigated by the inspectors. If they look into those accusations, the inspectors could remain in Syria well past this weekend, beyond their original mandate.

[ckaihatsu]

---

What profit is there for the US goverment to attack?going into another war will cost them a lot but I doubt they are going in just to kill Assad.

The official reasons given for the imminent attack are a pack of unsubstantiated lies, a collection of pretexts aimed at justifying a policy that was planned long in advance.

The real reasons for this latest war can be understood only within the context of the geopolitical, economic and social crisis of American and European capitalism, and the world imperialist system as a whole.

First: From a geopolitical standpoint, the long-planned war against Syria is yet another step in Washington’s campaign, since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, to secure its global dominance through military force. Confronted with the protracted decay in its once-dominant position in the world economy, the United States sees in its military power the means of establishing a hegemonic position.

Why the United States is waging war against Syria

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-united...940/index.html