Latest Breaking News

David__77

(23,334 posts)

33. And yet the media is treating that aspect with kid gloves.

Wed Aug 21, 2013, 08:44 PM

Aug 2013

"Some experts" are quoted as finding this to be curious.

Even Washington Post, that champion of insurgency in Syria, struck a tone of skepticism.

It seems by the point exceedingly obvious that this is a media ploy of the insurgents. They know that the UN team is not tasked with deciding WHO launched weapons, and that they will not go to unsecured areas. So they are attempting to undermine the mission.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Reports of massive chemical attack near Damascus as UN observers arrive in Syria [View all] David__77 Aug 2013 OP

UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use David__77 Aug 2013 #1

If the rebels did this, they could not have timed it worse. The UN chemical weapons team pampango Aug 2013 #2

Maybe the rebels John2 Aug 2013 #3

"The Syrian authorities claim ...", "They claimed ...", "According to them ...", "They claim ...". pampango Aug 2013 #4

The whole story sets off my bullshit detector spinbaby Aug 2013 #9

My thoughts exactly. n/t bitchkitty Aug 2013 #62

^^^^^^ indio55555 Aug 2013 #13

In war, it's difficult to find anyone credible. penultimate Aug 2013 #15

Yep. ocpagu Aug 2013 #64

Interesting coincidence that this comes on the same day that Gen. Dempsey says "No" to US military leveymg Aug 2013 #26

As opposed to the Syrian Govt. which is an upholder of human rights? n/t Daniel537 Aug 2013 #6

There doesn't seem to be any reason to think the rebels launched a chemical attack. Bradical79 Aug 2013 #8

The Russians have already accused the rebels of doing it themselves in a "premeditated provocation." Comrade Grumpy Aug 2013 #17

Unless they did it in reaction to Dempsey saying that US involvement is a bad idea karynnj Aug 2013 #28

Indeed, whether the government allows them to investigate tells us who did it. joshcryer Aug 2013 #37

Could be. AverageJoe90 Aug 2013 #63

The rebels have fighter planes to drop these weapons over wholesale cities? Daniel537 Aug 2013 #5

Yea because fighter jets are the only yoloisalie Aug 2013 #7

The US and NATO have shown zero interest in getting involved in this conflict. Daniel537 Aug 2013 #11

No, they are deeply involved in supporting the rebels. Comrade Grumpy Aug 2013 #18

The most common delivery method is artilery. Ash_F Aug 2013 #10

So you would rather John2 Aug 2013 #23

Were fighter planes used? karynnj Aug 2013 #30

Opposition says as many as 1,300 killed in gas attack near Damascus Eugene Aug 2013 #12

I will await further confirmation, but this just seems so convenient. Comrade Grumpy Aug 2013 #14

Maybe that's precisely what they want people to think. n/t Daniel537 Aug 2013 #16

Or maybe that's precisely what the rebels want people to think. n/t Comrade Grumpy Aug 2013 #19

If I were a dictator determined to hold on to power and wanted to send a message to my opponents, pampango Aug 2013 #20

Well, we can speculate all we want. Comrade Grumpy Aug 2013 #21

Obama will not act without Russia and China. joshcryer Aug 2013 #38

Just as you have accused me of believing the Syrian Government's bullshit, John2 Aug 2013 #22

You seem to get much of your information from the Syrian government. You may not believe it. pampango Aug 2013 #25

You seem to have the makings of an assistant propaganda minister, if not for the top job. leveymg Aug 2013 #27

Yeah, because Assad has been quite docile so far. joshcryer Aug 2013 #39

Russia calls Syria’s chemical weapons use claims provocation David__77 Aug 2013 #24

Got that right.... indio55555 Aug 2013 #29

And yet the media is treating that aspect with kid gloves. David__77 Aug 2013 #33

It certainly wasn't weapons grade. joshcryer Aug 2013 #41

So the reports coming from the ground should be ignored? Socal31 Aug 2013 #44

If it was mass dispersed tear gas nothing happens. joshcryer Aug 2013 #47

Tear gas does not cause the reported symptoms. Socal31 Aug 2013 #49

It's coming from me because I think the other options would've left more dead. joshcryer Aug 2013 #53

Here is to hoping this is just a nightmare. Socal31 Aug 2013 #54

Sounds about right. dipsydoodle Aug 2013 #31

Juan Cole's take differs. pampango Aug 2013 #34

Sure it could have happened. It just seems exceedingly unlikely. David__77 Aug 2013 #35

Every atrocity in Syria gets published that quickly. joshcryer Aug 2013 #40

Have you seen all of the dead children? Socal31 Aug 2013 #45

You're right, it doesn't matter. joshcryer Aug 2013 #46

I don't see where they admitted using any chemicals. They deny it, Russia says it was the rebels. Socal31 Aug 2013 #48

It may not have been CS gas exactly. joshcryer Aug 2013 #52

Reported 1000 dead on MSNBC. jessie04 Aug 2013 #32

UN Security Council meeting big_dog Aug 2013 #36

Initial eviidence pointed towards Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #42

This is going to lead to real US intervention, one way or the other. Socal31 Aug 2013 #43

Obama has the choice, completely. If he intervenes, it will destroy his presidency. David__77 Aug 2013 #50

The last thing I want is to get (more) involved in another conflict. Socal31 Aug 2013 #51

If Obama sends arms to al Qaeda, it's game over. David__77 Aug 2013 #55

Sending arms? Socal31 Aug 2013 #57

Oh there will be no NFZ. And no one else will "step in." There's no need to. David__77 Aug 2013 #58

Are you still confident in this statement? Socal31 Aug 2013 #61

Link with images. Socal31 Aug 2013 #56

Of course, theres another possibly nobody is mentioning Xithras Aug 2013 #59

We just don't know. And if the administration says they do know, they're lying. David__77 Aug 2013 #60