EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

[TomClash]

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

By Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh | August 29, 2013

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

. . .

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

[Junkdrawer]

1. K&R

[NightWatcher]

2. Makes more sense than Assad using them

The Saudis knew if it looked like chemical weapons were used, that the US would shell the shit out of Assad. The Saudis could get us to fight their enemy for them. How convenient...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

25. Again ...

[jakeXT]

3. Saw it on zerohedge

In an interview with Dale Gavlak, a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press and Mint Press News, Syrian rebels tacitly implied that they were responsible for last week’s chemical attack. Some information could not immediately be independently verified.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_30/Syrian-rebels-take-responsibility-for-the-chemical-attack-admitting-the-weapons-were-provided-by-Saudis-1203/

[Tx4obama]

4. How do they explain the napalm type chemical attack that was dropped from a FIGHTER JET?

The rebels do not have fighter jets - but Assad does.

Caution: Graphic images

Video of some of the people that Assad's napalm type chemical burnt: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

[TomClash]

10. The two are not mutually exclusive

Isn't it possible that both sides could have used chemical weapons?

This story is from two reporters actually in Ghouta, not a press release penned in the State Department.

[frylock]

18. are we shifting the goal posts now?

I thought this was about sarin gas?

[Tx4obama]

22. In my opinion ALL of Assad's attacks count

I see no reason that we should be quiet about the people/kids that Assad has burnt.

[frylock]

24. so where have you been the last couple of years?

surely, being the prolific poster that you are, there are hundreds of your posts regarding the hundreds of thousands of deaths from this civil war.

[Tx4obama]

26. I've been here on DU waiting for Assad to get the hell out of Syria

May 5, 2013

Assad should be on trial for crimes against humanity ASAP!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014475072#post6

May 4, 2013

Bashar Assad needs to go NOW!!! Assad should be on trial for war crimes!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017116557#post4

I had more comments/posts on DU2 than on DU3 - but I'm not going to waste time copying them in order to prove that I've always been against Assad.
There was one really good post over on DU2, a poll, but the polls on DU2 are disabled at the moment.
Assad was on the poll list - but the actual poll list is not there..

Poll question: Which dictator/leader/asshole will be the next to be tossed out of power due to a peoples uprising?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2158579

Have a great weekend

[dixiegrrrrl]

34. Attacking the messenger does not detract at all from the message.

[JEB]

40. Warning graphic images

of us use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, Iraq.
http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en-US&biw=&bih=&q=white+phosphorus+fallujah&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=ZC0hUvznNYm1igKO1IHQDQ&ved=0CCoQsAQ

[Marrah_G]

5. I don't beleive any of them

Not Assad, not the rebels.

We need to stay the hell out of it.

[indepat]

6. Was it not some 15 Saudis among those who reportedly hijacked the planes on 9-11? In response,

the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Now in Syria, it is alleged the chemical weapons used in the deadly attack had been supplied by a Saudi to an al-Quida group, but there are indications the U.S. nonetheless plans to bomb Syria. I would exclaim F. Jesus Christ were it not so blasphemous.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Former Senator Bob Graham says that if he could reveal what he knows about Saudi Arabia....

and 9/11, the US public would be outraged.

[indepat]

16. May the truth someday be known

[AzDar]

8. I would love to know what this rush to war is REALLY about...

[Junkdrawer]

11. Let's put it this way: If Obama backs down, it will be his "Bay of Pigs"....

A picture of a coordinated attack on Damascus is starting to emerge....

[indepat]

20. One seeming moral certainty comes to mind: a rush to pay for the cost of such war by offsetting

cuts in the social safety net et al.

[NorthCarolina]

41. Easy one..

[Barack_America]

9. Coordinated "mishandling" of the weapons.

In 4 different areas at the same time.

Unlikely.

[The Straight Story]

12. Hmm trust some syrians in al qaeda or Obama....let me see (nt)

[TomClash]

13. Reading is fundamental nt

[The Straight Story]

19. Oh, I read it :)

rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

---------

As I was saying, believe rebels, al-qaida, random fighters named 'k', or Obama/Kerry/Leaders of france/uk/germany/etc.

[TomClash]

23. Reporters on the ground?

Or unnamed sources from a State Department release?

Not so clear is it?

[The Straight Story]

28. We have really good intelligence assets, and I am sure the IDF had some input as well

Syria has reason to lie.

But, for the sake of argument, let's look at both sides.

1. Assad's forces were behind it: They had the most to gain from this as they were killing rebels. They have used them before and no one did anything about it. The rebels will leave their women and children behind and wage war on various fronts (ie attacking the military, ammo dumps, etc) - strike them where they are soft and they will divide up to defend their families which means less troops in the field. Now you have an internal conflict on whether to be more defensive or offensive and you split up the resistance.

2. Rebels were behind it: They killed their own supporters, they know the US and most other countries are looking for any reason to drone al-qaida members, and if found out they did it could get the US involved on the side of Assad with funding/etc. We won't side with the rebels in the whole conflict either way, and the most we would do to assad are some sanctions and limited strikes. They won't garner sympathy from Saudi Arabia (who just forked over 300 million to assist refugees and wants a more stable region since that increases profits). It would put the IDF on higher alert since the rebels are worse than assad to Israel if they gain power. And, if the rebels were going to use them it would most likely be against the Syrian army who is better equipped and more of a threat than civilians (why use your big weapons on the people who are least likely to be killing you?)

[TomClash]

51. Curveball says hello

Assad had no reason to do this. He has nothing to gain from getting France, Britain, Turkey and the US to increase support to the rebels and/or take military action against his Government. For Assad to commit this act is an asinine risk for little gain.

AQ and the other "rebels" had one very good reason to do this: to implicate Assad and draw the West in on their side. The Saudis don't care: get the Alawite out and replace him with a Sunni most deferential to the monarchy.

"Christians to Beirut and Alawites to their grave."

I will revise my opinion if and when Angela Kane submits her report and it proves me wrong.

[The Straight Story]

55. Apparently assad has done this 14 times already on a smaller scale

But let's say the rebels did draw us in, and that was their wish.

They are Al-Qaida and we have been bombing them since 2002 on a regular basis, from planes to drones in yemen

If we got into a war there they have to know we would be a much more formidable opponent than assad to them in Syria. They are boxed in. Israel to the south, turkey north, iraq to the east.

It would be dumb as hell for them to draw the US in and give us a reason to use Syrian air space and resources to hunt them. Heck, assad could have taken the lead and cried out that his people were under attack by the rebels using chemical weapons (except, his people were not hit).

And, oddly, as an aside - odd how we call them rebels and not terrorists in this case.

[TomClash]

64. So we didn't care 14 times and we care now?

The rebels have Saudi support. They are not worried about American drone strikes because they operate like an army, not in cells.

No way we are intervening to help Assad and their allies. It is impossible. They know this all too well.

On the other hand, if Assad goes, there are new vistas on the horizon for the US and its allies.

Terrorism is an asymmetrical method of warfare. This may be one of the few times it is being used correctly.

[The Straight Story]

65. Um, actually we did care before. In 2012, people seem to forget this:

Syria conflict: West 'appalled' by Russia China UN veto

Russia and China have vetoed a UN Security Council resolution proposing further sanctions on Syria, prompting an angry Western response.

The UK, US and France said the UN had failed the people of Syria.

Syrian troops have been mobilised to oust rebels from parts of Damascus, after a bomb killed three senior figures in the defence establishment.
...

With sporadic battles breaking out for control of Damascus, international envoy Kofi Annan has pushed the international community to take urgent and decisive action.

The Security Council still has to decide whether to renew the mandate of a UN mission in Syria, due to end on Friday. The UK is said to be revising the text of the vetoed resolution proposing an extension for a "final 30 days".

The BBC's Jim Muir in Lebanon says the 300 UN observers have found themselves completely sidelined by the violence in Syria. Whether or not the mission is extended, their commander Gen Robert Mood has decided to leave anyway, our correspondent says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18914578

How hard is it for folks to look back on things? I guess maybe we didn't care enough to follow it before around here, but a quick search turns up this and much more.

[TomClash]

67. I thought you were discussing 14 chemical attacks

Not the Russian-Chinese veto of UNSEC resolutions promoted by the US.

[The Straight Story]

31. BTW, the author of the piece believes the story was planted by Mossad:

Commit a War Crime to Cover Up a War Crime? Phoney Syria Poison Gas Story Planted By Mossad in the Western Media ~ (from his twitter).

He seems rather anti-Obama and anti-west as well.

[dixiegrrrrl]

36. So, we attack Assad, thereby helping the militant rebels, SOME OF WHOM ARE AL-QUADA

whom we have labled for years as terrorists and enemies of the US.

ummmm...is it not treason to aid and abet your country's enemies??

18 USC § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

[The Straight Story]

43. Will lay it out again on attacking

Hit radar sites, some planes, and ground to air missiles - this won't help the rebels since they don't have planes.

This will cost assad money and security when it comes to other nations should he continue.

This is the most likely plan the WH will use.

[dixiegrrrrl]

56. Will costing Assad money and security be of help to the rebels?

[The Straight Story]

59. Not really, because

the things we would be attacking are not of use to him in fighting the rebels (except some planes if we knock them out, which after the napalm thing today we probably should).

Hitting some ammo dumps would help them, so probably should not (unless they are a threat to our ships in anyway).

Radar/SAMs/Etc are not being used against the rebels. We do something, we don't upset the balance of power in the civil war.

[HooptieWagon]

62. In other words, it will do little damage to Assad.

It won't eliminate chemical weapons or prevent their future use. There is no tactical or strategic gain. Just a pointless face-saving gesture by Obama that no doubt will add to civilian casualties. Maybe they won't bomb the Chinese Embassy by mistake this time.

[The Straight Story]

63. No, what it will do is

Degrade his ability to defend against a plethora of other countries that could take action should he continue.

Remove his air defenses and France, et al could strike more easily should he continue.

We can't blow up the chemical weapons. We don't want troops in there.

The only real danger to attacking him from the air (via drones/planes) is his air defense system, early warning radars, etc.

Make him as defenseless as the people he is gassing. His armies have no where to go - they are surrounded by countries not friendly to them, and should they attempt anything without a good air defense system they would be easy to pick off from the air.

[HooptieWagon]

66. Thats ridiculous.

The Russians will provide him with up and running air-defenses in two days. Taking out radar,etc,with missles is done immediately prior to an air raid....not as preliminary strike for an event that may or may not occur months or years in the future.
Whatever the US missles strike will not affect Assad's immediate ability to wage war on the rebels in the least. And the Russians will be able to replace it all, with the exception of dead civilians.

[frylock]

21. obama gets his info from intel agencies that are likely getting their info from..... wait for it..

SYRIANS!

[HooptieWagon]

14. Another possibility....

Is that the rebels were stockpiling chemical weapons, and those stockpiles were hit in a government strike.
Its war, and a clusterfuck. We'll probably not ever know for certain exactly what happened and who's responsible. Which is why its important not to go off half-cocked on a rash course of action.

[JDPriestly]

46. I too have wondered about that theory.

[JRLeft]

15. We need to stay the fuck out of the syria.

[treestar]

17. "many believe"

need better evidence than that.

[KittyWampus]

27. Well, it's refreshing to see some DU'ers aren't denying there was a chemical attack

at least there's some progress.

[whttevrr]

30. I've been reading a lot of these posts and almost all acknowledge chemical weapons use...

The problem has always been the who, how, and where. I am pretty sure the what was acknowledged.

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. ...

[Narkos]

29. Disinformation campaign

[Scootaloo]

32. Even if it's wrong, it illustrates an important point...

The "rebels" don't have a lot of political traction with Syrians at large.

The opposition, meanwhile, has never cohered. It has made advances, and it has taken control of local state apparatuses - a town here, a police station there. But this has merely accelerated the fragmentation and disintegration of political authority within Syria. The one area of the country where the opposition is unified is in the Kurdish north-east, where a regional administration is governing with the support of Iraqi Kurdistan.

The formation of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces - out of a fusion between the old SNC, the Muslim Brothers, the secular democrats, the socialists, the Free Syrian Army and the Local Coordinating Committees - might suggest that some cohesion has been achieved, and that a popular interim government is ready to take power if the military balance of forces changes.

It is not as simple as that. It is true that the regime is militarily backed by Russia, but it clearly retains a significant degree of popular support, from which it has been able to forge a counter-revolutionary armed force with which to defeat its opponents. It is not, and never is, purely a military calculation: the revolution has failed to spread because it has not won politically. And this is because despite what some people would call 'top table' agreements between leaders, there is very little practical unity on the ground between anti-Assad forces. It is this which has given a certain space to the salafists, so-called 'Al Qaida in Syria' (Jabhat al-Nusra), to punch well above their weight. Of course, the idea that the opposition is dominated by a few thousand salafists is as implausible as the idea that when US boots land on Syrian soil their major foes will be 'Al Qaida'. It's horseshit. But it is better organised and more efficient than many of the other groups, it does get involved in most major anti-government actions, its politics are extremely reactionary, and it bears responsible for some of the worst war crimes.
http://www.leninology.com/2013/08/who-is-this-we-mammal.html

[arely staircase]

33. the rebels have jets? nt

[stevenleser]

35. The problem I see with this report is, the Saudis do not have chemical weapons

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/saudi-arabia/

But that's besides the point. We should stay out of the Syrian issue entirely.

[Junkdrawer]

38. Israel doen't have nukes either... officially....

Enough money buys anything...

[stevenleser]

39. That's ridiculous. Israel has made it clear that they have them. The Saudi's haven't.

And you don't need lots of money to make Sarin. Someone with a Bachelors degree in chemistry can make Sarin.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519700.400-tokyos-deadly-nerve-gas-easy-to-make.html

SEVEN people were killed and more than 3000 taken to hospital after nerve gas was released in Tokyo's underground system early on Monday morning. Japanese experts fear that the attack with the nerve gas sarin suggests that terrorists are increasing the weapons in their armoury. Sarin is relatively simple to make from materials that are available on the open market.

"Sarin has to go through four processes if it's produced from the raw material, and that's difficult," says Tasaka Kowa, chemistry professor at the International Christian University in Tokyo. "But if someone starts with the intermediate stage and just puts the chemicals together, he or she can do that with the knowledge of a university chemistry graduate."

Dispersing sarin is also easy. It dissolves in acetonitrile, a common industrial solvent. "That makes the sarin less volatile, and therefore easier to handle and to transport," says Kowa. "The sarin evaporates gradually ...

[Junkdrawer]

42. So "the Saudis do not have chemical weapons" isn't a problem....

and FYI: Israel still maintains a "Policy of deliberate ambiguity"

Israel: Whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity

[stevenleser]

44. Which everybody knows means they have them. This is not a mystery to anyone.

Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent unless people know you have them. Hence, Israel made sure people know it.

And I hope the other part of your comment means that you acknowledge that the Saudis providing the rebels with chemical weapons is ludicrous.

[Junkdrawer]

48. You just told us in exquisite detail that Sarin is easy to make....

But you're hanging you hat on Saudi Arabia doesn't have a chemical weapon's program?

Oh, and "deliberate ambiguity" is why I added "...officially"

[stevenleser]

49. I don't have a chemical weapons program either, despite them being easy to make. Do you? nt

[Junkdrawer]

50. And YOU call me "ridiculous" and "ludicrus"....

[stevenleser]

52. Yes, you are. You implied something being easy to make means everyone has made one.

I responded with a sarcastic reply that makes it clear how ridiculous your position is.

[Junkdrawer]

53. Fielding mercenaries, especially good ones, is expensive. You said...

Except Saudi Arabia has no chemical weapons program. Then you tell us, accurately, how easy Sarin is to make.

Seriously, you can't see how silly the perch you made for yourself is? Really?

[questionseverything]

54. if it is so easy to make

how do you know the saudis didnt?

[stevenleser]

57. You are asking me to prove a negative. Its up to you to prove the positive. nt

[questionseverything]

60. i do not have to prove anything

you made the statement that the saudis do not have gas weapons...but clearly since they are easy to make and the saudis could easy finance it....you do not know either way

[stevenleser]

61. No one here does. But in a debate, you don't ask someone to prove a negative. Ask around, folks here

will tell you.

[TomClash]

68. Not so very long ago

Israel vehemently denied the possession of any nuclear weapons.

[lamp_shade]

37. Yuh sure.

[JDPriestly]

45. You need to read the book The Price of Loyalty based on the account of Paul O'Neill

about his time in the early stages of the Bush administration to really appreciate who Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan is and what role he played in the US, his relationship with the Bushes, etc.

[Historic NY]

58. Mint press, isn't that part of the Examiner...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014581369

[dipsydoodle]

69. Antiwar link here :

http://original.antiwar.com/Dale-Gavlak/2013/08/30/syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack/

The locked posts were LBN issues.