Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do we have a more reliable source than some unknown NEVADA newspaper for this information?
Yes, acknowledged. Did you finish reading?
UPDATE: This article was updated to clarify one or two points that some of our readers found misleading: The chemical attack earlier this year was widely blamed on the Syrian regime. It is this attack that the UN now concludes was carried out by Syrian rebels. It appears unlikely for a number of reasons that the most recent August 21st attack was carried out by government forces despite the rush to judgement within the international community although this has yet to be fully determined. It is clear that both sides in the Syrian conflict have the means to use chemical weapons and it would be misguided to assume that either side has a moral objection to such attacks.
The guardian reporting on UN findings is syrian news outlet now?
The guardian reporting on UN findings is syrian news outlet now?
I could swear I read an article where the U.N inspectors could determine if chemical weapons were used but not allowed to determine who used them. Wonder what changed?
They ignored the order. It's called LEAKING.
Will they make these leakers flee like Snowden?
As the Syrian revolt continues to tear the country apart, the international community has been eager to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even as it became clear that the rebels do not, in fact, represent a popular uprising against the oppression of the Assad regime. According to UN diplomat Carla del Ponte, however, it appears that the recent chemical weapons attack, in April, was carried out by the Syrian rebels and not the regime, as it had been widely assumed. Speaking to a Swiss television channel, del Ponte said that there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels had carried out the attack. She also said UN investigators had seen no evidence of the Syrian army using chemical weapons, but that further investigation was needed.
Ms. Del Ponte is a Swiss and international Prosecutor and diplomat. Within the United Nations System, she is a former Chief Prosecutor of two United Nations international criminal tribunals.
As an investigating magistrate and public prosecutor in Switzerland, Ms. Del Ponte investigated and prosecuted cases of money laundering, terrorism, arms smuggling and espionage, and other facets of organized transnational crime.
Since September 2012, she has served as a Commissioner of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.
Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".
Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons.
Ms Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general and prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), did not rule out the possibility that troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad might also have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was needed.
I could swear I read an article where the U.N inspectors could determine if chemical weapons were used but not allowed to determine who used them. Wonder what changed?
They can determine immediately.
SHowing that there is no difference between (D) and (R) when it comes to foreign policy ( and a host of other things).
Regardless, The evidence isn't favorable to siding with these so called rebels. In other words, we should stay out of it. But wont.
cant argue thatjust proves, once again, what liars this administration is!
Every administration since Wilson has lied to the American people.
.
most politicians do.. but my god
SHowing that there is no difference between (D) and (R) when it comes to foreign policy ( and a host of other things).
Indeed. If you sat a modern day "conservative" down in 2008 and outlined everything the US would do in the next five years, foreign-policywise, they would swear it was a Republican President.
But because it is Obama, they act most hypocritically toward his actions. Benghazi and their stadnding on the dead bodies to surround the tragedy with manufactured bullshit being the highlight.
Regardless, The evidence isn't favorable to siding with these so called rebels. In other words, we should stay out of it. But wont.
I think people see what they want to see, and willfully blind themselves to what they don't want to see.
The rebels are being supported for the most part by the local states around Syria, not by the U.S.
Is Al Qaeda taking advantage? Of course.
Is Al Qaeda in charge? Is Al Qaeda going to prevail should the rebels succeed in bringing down Assad? These questions are the ones which fantasies not based on facts are being built upon.
The Syrian government appears to have used chemical weapons against its people last week, and this is a gross human rights violation.
I could swear I read an article where the U.N inspectors could determine if chemical weapons were used but not allowed to determine who used them. Wonder what changed?
They ignored the order. It's called LEAKING.
Will they make these leakers flee like Snowden?
just proves, once again, what liars this administration is!
It was not just the United States.
i could swear i read an article where the u.n inspectors could determine if chemical weapons were used but not allowed to determine who used them. Wonder what changed?
they ignored the order. It's called leaking.
Will they make these leakers flee like snowden?
snowden is a defector.
SHowing that there is no difference between (D) and (R) when it comes to foreign policy ( and a host of other things).
Indeed. If you sat a modern day "conservative" down in 2008 and outlined everything the US would do in the next five years, foreign-policywise, they would swear it was a Republican President.
But because it is Obama, they act most hypocritically toward his actions. Benghazi and their stadnding on the dead bodies to surround the tragedy with manufactured bullshit being the highlight.
Regardless, The evidence isn't favorable to siding with these so called rebels. In other words, we should stay out of it. But wont.
I think people see what they want to see, and willfully blind themselves to what they don't want to see.
The rebels are being supported for the most part by the local states around Syria, not by the U.S.
Is Al Qaeda taking advantage? Of course.
Is Al Qaeda in charge? Is Al Qaeda going to prevail should the rebels succeed in bringing down Assad? These questions are the ones which fantasies not based on facts are being built upon.
The Syrian government appears to have used chemical weapons against its people last week, and this is a gross human rights violation.
]
