UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use

page: 1
25

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
It wasn't too long ago that we were hearing about chemical weapon use in Syria and whether this was the red line, that Obama had talked about. That news all went a bit quiet. I think this is the reason why


"According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas," del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor, said in an interview with Swiss radio late on Sunday.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So it is the very groups the west is backing that were using the Chemical weapons, not the Assad regime. Interesting turn up, but I guess many suspected it.




posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


And I wonder who supplied them with the weapons, hmmm.

I thought Al-CIAeda were the bad guys, now we've backed them in Egypt, Libya and Syria...


edit on 6-5-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


It doesn't say who supplied the weapons in the article, maybe they got their hands on some of Syrias chemical weapons?

The whole war seems strange. Not much of an Arab uprising, when they are calling for US,UK and French support to achieve their "uprising".



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


From what i remember, parts of the FSA posted propaganda videos of themselves testing chemical weapons. They filmed the containers of which the chemicals were being stored in. ATS members tracked the company name down to Turkey. So the rebels are getting chemical weapons from Turkey.

How they are getting them is a whole other question (my guess is that the Turkish government is supplying them with the weapons).



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


In my opinion this is a win/win situation for the West/NATO.

Plan A...fund and equip the so called "rebels" and hope they take down the Assad regime with out direct foreign intervention. If plan A fails, there is always plan B.

Plan B...plan A didn't work out and the "rebels" they funded have been "hijacked" by extremists who for the most part are not even from Syria and they end up using chemical weapons. This gives the West/NATO an excuse to intervene directly in Syria by first implementing a no fly zone then eventually allowing foreign troops to enter Syria to stop the rebel extremists and overthrow Assad at the same time.

I believe that the West/NATO were planning on plan B to take place since the beginning...

Plan A was a trick.

Of course there is much more to this than plans A and B.
edit on 5/6/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

Thats right. In Libya we used a wine press to squish the grapes. Plan A worked there. In Syria we have been reduced to stomping the grapes with our feet. Plan B will just take a little longer there.

Either way, the world loses.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


From what i remember, parts of the FSA posted propaganda videos of themselves testing chemical weapons. They filmed the containers of which the chemicals were being stored in. ATS members tracked the company name down to Turkey. So the rebels are getting chemical weapons from Turkey.

How they are getting them is a whole other question (my guess is that the Turkish government is supplying them with the weapons).



look at this str8 from the artilce :


Turkish authorities are carrying out blood tests on Syrians who have fled the fighting at home to determine if they have been victims of chemical weapons, a medical source said Monday.


the Turks will obviously say its assad's regime using chem wep

edit on 6-5-2013 by heineken because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
25 years ago people would have just accepted whatever press releases and broadcast news told them. Today, however, with the internet and the speed of alternative news, they can't fool everyone all the time. More and more people are going to ask questions and look for answers.

So now we have the administration claiming it's Assad and not the rebels, yet the UN claims it's the rebels. And we supposedly support the rebels? Perhaps this is why the administration is claiming it's Assad.

This whole thing sucks, stinks, and people's lives are being used as chess pieces to advance a geopolitical agenda. I'm not sure how these people in charge of all of this sleep at night. I know I wouldn't be able to.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


And I wonder who supplied them with the weapons, hmmm.

I thought Al-CIAeda were the bad guys, now we've backed them in Egypt, Libya and Syria...


edit on 6-5-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)


I guess it's as the saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I would love for these government bodies, and especially war journalists, to really get in there and find out where the rebels are coming from and who is arming them. If they are Syrian rebels and not outsiders -- who is arming them? They are seen pictures with a lot of expensive weapons.

On top of the previous issuee -- where the heak would they get chemical weapons from? Who is supplying them weapons and money to continue these campaigns?



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Nobody cares. Obama is using disappearing red ink.
Israel is in charge now.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I bet the next day a bunch of CIA guys called their al-quaeeda pets and scolded them for not wearing syrian army uniforms while using the chemical weapons





new topics
top topics
 
25

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 23 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def