It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 12:35 PM
I know ill get the inevitable "thats not a reliable source" and I dont care, regardless of the source, the story
its self seems plausible to me.
Havent the rebels already admitted once that they accidentally released the gas?
I think the other countries believe that either the rebels did it on purpose to blame it on Assad or they
believe that it was an accident, which is why they dont want any part of this attack.
So, it begs the question. Why is the US so insistent on going to war with Syria, well I think the answer to that, lies in the tiny little Nation to their south.
Israel has been really quiet lately, which makes me even more suspicious.


The interviews were conducted by Ababneh of residents, rebels and their families in Damascus and Ghouta are putting together a different picture of what happened. Many believe that rebels received chemical weapons provided through the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. It's being reported that these weapons are responsible for last week's gas attack. The father of a rebel who was killed in what's now being called an accident by many in Ghouta and Damascus said: "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 said at least 12 rebels including his son were killed by the chemical weapons. Allegedly they were killed in the tunnel that was used to store the chemicals. These were provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha. He is said to be leading a fighting battalion in the effort to unseat Assad. The weapon was described as a "tube-like structure" by Abdel-Moneim.

Chemical weapons, provided by the Saudis?
Maybe thats why they want to get in their so fast.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 12:50 PM
Isn't this really old news posted some time last week ?

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by FawnyKate

Yea, the article is dated Aug. 30th, which I didnt notice so maybe it is the same thing I was thinking of about the first time the rebels admitted they did it.. oh well

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by FawnyKate
Isn't this really old news posted some time last week ?

So 5 days is really old news...

Still relevant?

Us still trying to go to war on Lies? Check.

So yeah still relevant.

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:13 PM

top topics

log in