Posted on 08/28/2013 7:53:20 AM PDT by tcrlaf
CAIRO, August 28 (Itar-Tass) - Evidence provided by eyewitnesses and people who suffered from a poisonous gas attack in the Eastern Ghouta region near Damascus obviously points to the fact that the neuro-paralytic gas sarin was used there by the paramilitaries of Syrias irreconcilable opposition, Carla del Ponte, the former chief prosecutor of UN international criminal tribunals said in an interview with Swiss television Wednesday.
Her words were cited by Surya al-Aan news portal.
Maybe as part of providing said chemicals, reassurances were given to NOT use them in the USA.
Let's see... who might negotiate such a codicil to the chemical provision aggreement?
So the rebels who are radical muslims used sarin gas on the Syrians. Both groups happen to hate the US.
Which group is obama supporting again?
And who'd be dumb enough to think they can negotiate with terrorists?
That's easy: Fellow terrorists.
UH oh...that doesn’t fit Obama’s narrative. It may be reported by Tass, but the content is still quite interesting.
Your point about the news being recycled is valid. However, the TASS report has today’s date on it.
But Obama does have strong motivation to jump into the conflict.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
” islamist will commit whatever atrocities they need to further their cause”
The same could be said about Democrats.
There are other reports out of London with the same info on del Ponte,,and its about the current attack,,,complete with Jay Carney denials at the end...
Excellent questions. The MSM will not ask.
Quote from Harakah 8/28 article: Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated, Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.
Again, you judge.
obama has already leaked what he plans to do
2-3 days of air or missile strikes
no regime change
no boots on the ground
#1 gives whoever is on the targets a chance to move everything or beef up defenses
#2 whut? then what is the end game that justifies this attack? kinda expensive and really really WW3 risky to use the US Navy to spank Assad's monkeys
#3 if all we gonna do is go in and break stuff from 200 miles offshore and 35K feet, then (without boots n the ground) how we gonna make sure we broke it so bad the govt doesn't just fix it again or our allies the terrorists don't go help themselves to what is now left open and undefended? If the mission is even logical, such as to destroy WMD, then boots on the ground is a vital part of securing the sites and finishing the job
amen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.