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

[Maedhros]

Earlier threads regarding this report cited third-party re-posts of this article. Here is the original:

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

Byline: Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh

Dale Gavlak is a credible reporter who has worked for the Associated Press:

http://bigstory.ap.org/author/dale-gavlak

the BBC:

e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21147461

and NPR.

Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a master's degree in journalism.

Mint Press News added the following clarification to the 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

.

Here is a story on Mint Press News by the Minnesota Post:

http://www.minnpost.com/david-brauer-blog/2012/01/who-mintpress-and-why-are-they-doing-all-hiring

[polichick]

1. k&r

[JackRiddler]

2. I don't know what to think...

Since the report does not present an overwhelming, multi-source case using multiple bodies of evidence. On the face of it, Syrian regular army far better equipped to have carried out the attacks, but that's not proof either. Nor is "cui bono."

For me the most interesting circumstantial bit here is that the USG and its media lackeys are all calling their case definitive even as USG actions have prevented the UN inspectors from doing their work, forcing them out of the country. Why not wait for the UN inspection team that was already in Syria to do their mission, before declaring the case closed on the basis, apparently, of Israeli intel that is even sketchier than Ababneh's report?

[NightWatcher]

4. And since so many don't know what to think

Maybe we shouldn't rush to war on evidence that may or not be trustworthy or compete.

[JackRiddler]

6. Oh, there's no need to tell me that.

There shouldn't be any US war, period, ever again. All legitimacy and standing for the USG war machine was spent long ago, this organization has committed by far the greatest international crimes for almost 70 years and has no business intervening unilaterally anywhere. The only legit discussion is how to reduce the burden of the MIC that we all must carry. It's time for the "peace dividend," finally.

[sabrina 1]

26. The very first reports on the Social media indicated that 'rebels' had attacked

people with Chemical weapons. I didn't believe it at first as there was no confirmation for about a day or so.

Then the Western Media began its coverage and all of a sudden we 'knew' who had done it. We were even told what the chemical was. How could they have known that unless they were there? The UN cautioned people not to make claims even about what was used until their investigation was complete.

Logic, if there is any anymore, tells me that while Assad isn't any angel, he's also not stupid. He KNEW that the West was just itching to launch an attack and speed things up in Syrian. Their two year backing of the 'rebel's wasn't going very well. Obviously they didn't expect the Syrian people to fight so hard FOR Assad.

Not to mention, we were even hearing from former ANTI Assad Syrians that the 'rebels' were all from outside the country and were killing people and causing untold harm and they were now supporting Assad, at least until the 'rebel's were defeated.

Same thing happened in Libya. So I would be surprised if Assad was that stupid, it would be almost an invitation to the Western powers to launch an attack on Syria.

[dipsydoodle]

3. K & R.

.

[Barack_America]

5. Yes, yes, the story about the rebels who "mishandled" the weapons in 4 different places...

...at the same time.

[delrem]

7. Who says al-Qaeda terrorists (your "the rebels") mishandled the CW?

Or do you think al-Qaeda is too "moral" to kill 1,000 innocents as a provocation?

[Barack_America]

8. Um, the linked article in the OP??

Which I presume you read before replying?

[delrem]

12. OP doesn't justify your scoffing.

"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."
"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.”
A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said."

This says that al-Qaeda acted deliberately, so the "mishandling" was the result of an intended ignorance.

[sabrina 1]

27. So if it wasn't Al Queda rebels, who make up a large part now of the 'opposition', who

do you think was responsible and what proof do you have, Utube videos?

[Barack_America]

29. The Syrian government.

Given that I don't have clearance to receive US intelligence, I offer up logic as my "proof". That is the simple fact that an organized military is far more likely to have the ability and coordimation to simultaneously attack up to 12 areas with highly lethal (and volatile) sarin gas.

I understand why it is very convenient for people to hold onto the notion that a group of rebels/terrorists could be capable of such a feat, but logic is not on the side of this argument.

[sabrina 1]

31. Actually I think logic tells us the opposite. Assad knows that the Western powers

have had Syria on their list of ME countries to invade for nearly 15 years now and are just waiting for a reason. I don't think he is so stupid as to do something like this which would be practically inviting an attack that he absolutely does not want.

And it was not that hard for 'rebels' to do. They are not even Syrians, they are outsiders working for the Saudis who can supply money and weapons.

This whole 'revolution' itself has been a lie. And despite the 'proxy armies' that have been sent in to destabilize the country fully armed and financed, the Syrian people have prevented them from winning.

T

[Barack_America]

32. I think Assad feels confident no one would dare strike over his chemical weapons usage...

...the Middle East being such a tinderbox and all. And having such powerful friends in Russia, Iran and China. So far, he's exactly right. He's getting away with it this time, and probably will next time too.

On edit: I didn't argue that the rebels couldn't stomach using chemical weapons, I argued that, tactically, they do not have the ability to pull off what happened on Aug. 21. So far, I've not seen any convincing arguments that they could have.

[sabrina 1]

34. And no one has seen any convincing evidence that Assad did it. You're wrong about

the 'rebels' not having the ability to do it. You are thinking of Syrians, the 'rebels' in Syria are partly made up of Saudi backed Al Queda fighters who are right now driving the Kurds out of Syria.

There is no doubt that the Saudis are deeply involved in this, this is why the Brits refused to back intervention, due to all the 'outside extremist' groups there.

If Congress is going to base their evidence on Utube videos, then they better watch ALL the videos from Syria including the ones showing eye-witnesses explaining how the Saudi Backed rebels were able to do this.

Btw, why are we supporting Dictators like Karamov in Uzbekistan who actually did kill his own people in what was described by the International community as 'genocide'?

If this is all about protecting human beings from dictators, then you would be very disturbed by the US government's support of people like Karamov, right? I know I am.

[reusrename]

10. Sure, why not?

It's just human nature, isn't it? None of the stuff in those 4 cases was any type of militarized (read "idiot proof&quot weapon system. The single case where they claim to have been given militarized gas, they claim they were never told what it was.

Why wouldn't the Saudi's (read "BFEE&quot do something exactly like this? The brass ring is to nuke Iran, isn't it?

[delrem]

15. I think the pro-war idea is to paint the "rebels" as virtuous freedom fighters,

and to deliberately, systematically refuse to acknowledge the fact that al-Qaeda runs the show, that the house of al-Saud funds the show, that the same al-Saud gofers that equipped and funded bin Laden in Afghanistan are in charge of this show, and so on.

By "deliberate" I mean knowingly and with deliberation misrepresenting the facts.

[cheapdate]

9. Again, maybe so, maybe not.

An independent reporter was told by some locals that he interviewed that the rebels were given chemical weapons:

“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.”

The father of one of the rebels spoke of weapons "provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha". The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

It's not a secret or a revelation that the Saudi's, like the Iranians and others, are deeply involved in Syria.

I'll neither dismiss this report from Dale Gavlak, nor afford it any more weight than it deserves. He talked to some locals. They made some claims.

[Maedhros]

18. You are correct - it is NOT a definitive report.

At the same time, it must be included in the analysis.

[sabrina 1]

28. Well, that's more than anyone from the US has done.

So, we have the US claiming they KNOW who did despite not being anywhere near the scene of the tragedy. And Cameron acknowledging that and saying however 'it is a judgement call, I've seen videos'. That, thankfully wasn't enough for Parliament.

And then we have people who were actually there telling a Reporter what they saw.

Neither proves anything, but I would go with someone who was there absent more conclusive evidence.

And since there is so much doubt, we should not even be considering interfering. We did that in Iraq.

[reusrename]

11. It's been a couple of days and no "main stream" reporter has asked Bandar for comment.

There's a definite pattern here. Kill the messenger and then ignore the message.

Why can't a news organization ask the Saudis for a comment on this?

Oh, wait. Because that would further publicize the story and it would be counterproductive to their mission of catapulting the propaganda.

[Raksha]

14. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

[delrem]

17. Yup. An MSM which wasn't a deliberate accomplice of the MIC would be explaining all this in detail.

It would be headline news, opposite the headline news about speeches by Obama, Biden and Kerry.
If the MSM weren't a deliberate accomplice it wouldn't repeat the MIC's (PNAC project's) assertions as fact, and they would *at least* use words like "alleged" when passing on the MIC's unsupported pronouncements of blame.

eta: and people would know who Bandar Bush is, and why this stone cold killer is called Bandar "Bush".

[sabrina 1]

30. The MSM is a propaganda machine, and CNN wonders why it is 'struggling for viewers'.

Maybe some more reliable News Media will ask them. RT, CCTV, some of the non-European media.

But the MSM does what it is told. I believe nothing I see there after Iraq unless it is verified by a more reliable source.

[cheapdate]

19. I would make a wild guess that hundreds of reports

have been written by journalists from around the world about the recent chemical attacks in Syria. The sole fact that this one report published by Mint Press, a small, online news organization, and featuring short quotations from a handful of street interviews, has not become the main focus of attention by the major news organizations is not necessarily compelling evidence of a conspiracy to hide the truth.

[Raksha]

13. Thank you for posting this story on DU.

I read it for the first time two days ago, before the clarification was added. I wondered when it was finally going to show up here.

[sibelian]

16. NON-CREDIBLE SOURCE! DEBUNKED! ULTERIOR MOTIVES!

RAND PAUL SUPPORTERS! POLEDANCERS! RACISTS!

ETC!

[cheapdate]

20. It's up to the reader to decide how much credibility

or skepticism to give to street interviews with "...a female fighter named ‘K’" or "A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’".

[daleo]

21. As opposed to 'highly placed officials'

Or 'confidential intelligence sources'. They don't even come with initials.

[cheapdate]

23. Not "as opposed to" -- rather "as well as".

The reader has to decide. I'd recommend skepticism for claims from "Unnamed officials".

[Maedhros]

24. Or "unnamed Pentagon sources" [n/t]

[sibelian]

35. ...thence to claim to be authority on the source, presumably. nt

[KittyWampus]

22. It wasn't Assad or the Rebels it was… BAT BOY!

[Maedhros]

25. You're really upset that there are people against killing Syrians, aren't you?

We should just get out of the way so the bombs can start flying?

[KittyWampus]

33. I am against intervening in Syria right now. So I have no idea what your jabbering about.

Unless you mean Assad killing civilians. Yes, I am upset about that.