Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons - GoFuckYourself.com

J. Falcon · 09-05-2013, 09:00 AM

Quote:

In a report that is sure to be considered blockbuster news, the rebels told Mint Press Reporter Yahya Ababneh they are responsible for the chemical attack last week.

MPN reporter Ababneh said that rebels allegedly told told her the chemical attack was a result of mishandling chemical weapons.

LINK

Who to believe?

Rochard · 09-05-2013, 09:04 AM

We don't want to see this!

pornmasta · 09-05-2013, 09:05 AM

need more sources

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornmasta

need more sources

why? this has been floating around for the past week

the 'examiner.com'.. it's huge they're running this story

pornmasta · 09-05-2013, 09:09 AM

hacking
disinformation

...

deltav · 09-05-2013, 10:48 AM

As usual these sources are retarded.

Examiner.com is an "amateur" news site where anyone can publish stories, there's no real central editorial control or vetting of content - as a result they routinely plagiarize legit articles and publish total bullshit.

Mint Press is an idealistic little startup by inexperienced students & amateurs. Their heart is in the right place IMO and I dig the focus on human rights & social justice, but these are not seasoned correspondents. All they do in their article is repeat speculation by random people and quote various other news stories in 'real' newspapers, then plop a provocative headline on it to get pageviews. There's zero independent verification by any of the writers.

I'm against action in Syria, but I'm also against shitty journalism and people who regurgitate it as fact because it backs up their worldview.

wehateporn · 09-05-2013, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

I'm against action in Syria, but I'm also against shitty journalism and people who regurgitate it as fact because it backs up their worldview.

Let's stick to Fox News, CNN and BBC

Rochard · 09-05-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

why? this has been floating around for the past week

the 'examiner.com'.. it's huge they're running this story

No, not at all. I've never heard of examiner.com until this thread.

From their site:

Quote:

Examiner.com launched in April 2008, to provide freelancers across the United States with a platform to share their knowledge and expertise through informative and entertaining content.

Seems trustworthy to me.

I'm not saying this isn't true. I'm saying (a) if this was true the mainstream news would be all over it, and (b) it's more likely that someone is against the US getting involved in Syria is taking a lot of creative license here.

LouiseLloyd · 09-05-2013, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Let's stick to Fox News, CNN and BBC

Or stick cock in Johnnyclips

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Let's stick to Fox News, CNN and BBC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

No, not at all. I've never heard of examiner.com until this thread.

From their site:

Seems trustworthy to me.

I'm not saying this isn't true. I'm saying (a) if this was true the mainstream news would be all over it, and (b) it's more likely that someone is against the US getting involved in Syria is taking a lot of creative license here.

And last week it was just blogs based in the mid east region.

The source is excellent, and they have some balls for running that story.

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

As usual these sources are retarded.

Examiner.com is an "amateur" news site where anyone can publish stories, there's no real central editorial control or vetting of content - as a result they routinely plagiarize legit articles and publish total bullshit.

Mint Press is an idealistic little startup by inexperienced students & amateurs. Their heart is in the right place IMO and I dig the focus on human rights & social justice, but these are not seasoned correspondents. All they do in their article is repeat speculation by random people and quote various other news stories in 'real' newspapers, then plop a provocative headline on it to get pageviews. There's zero independent verification by any of the writers.

I'm against action in Syria, but I'm also against shitty journalism and people who regurgitate it as fact because it backs up their worldview.

Hey Look!

Fox News is on!

deltav · 09-05-2013, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Let's stick to Fox News, CNN and BBC

Right - because that's exactly what I said, moron.

deltav · 09-05-2013, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

Hey Look!

Fox News is on!

Nice irrelevant non sequiter as usual. Did you not read my last sentence? I question using "The Examiner" as a source and point out the original story has no independent verification, fuck if I know what's really happening over there and IMO as it stands the West should stay the hell out, I'm just pointing out that it's not convincing journalism. But I don't think some of you guys comprehend that concept.

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

Nice irrelevant non sequiter as usual. Did you not read my last sentence? I question using "The Examiner" as a source and point out the original story has no independent verification, fuck if I know what's really happening over there and IMO as it stands the West should stay the hell out, I'm just pointing out that it's not convincing journalism. But I don't think some of you guys comprehend that concept.

it's not irrelevant at all. your point is this is only a 'credible source' if fox news runs it

go away.

Tom_PM · 09-05-2013, 11:22 AM

So, so far we "know" it was mishandling of chemical weapons in the hands of rebels, it was also launched from a ship in the Mediterranean sea, in addition to actual intelligence agencies who tracked the launch from within gov. controlled areas, intercepted orders for troops to be ready with gas masks and supposedly intercepted various terrorists saying that Assad had lost his nerve and ordered the attacks.

Pick your theory, step right up. Win a Kewpie doll for your sweetheart.

purecane · 09-05-2013, 11:39 AM

aren't the rebels al-queda? and aren't we the ones funding them? sooo, does that make the US government responsible for the chemical weapons?

i could be wrong, but that's my

baddog · 09-05-2013, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

As usual these sources are retarded.

Examiner.com is an "amateur" news site where anyone can publish stories, there's no real central editorial control or vetting of content - as a result they routinely plagiarize legit articles and publish total bullshit.

I am a writer (restaurant reviewer) for Examiner.com - I pretty much stopped submitting articles to them because of the total bullshit they publish with reckless abandon. goodgirl and I joke about articles I could write that would get millions of views . . . . but they would all be bullshit. It seems the only articles they really put out there on the social networks are the sensational (bullshit) ones.

The fact that _Richard_ thinks they are a reliable news source does not surprise me at all.

deltav · 09-05-2013, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

it's not irrelevant at all. your point is this is only a 'credible source' if fox news runs it

go away.

Yup - except I never mentioned the propagandistic piece of garbage that is Fox News, and there's also the detail that my personal politics run probably into the radical spectrum of left-wing. There's that.

Good advice on the 'go away' part though, no use arguing with morons.

Rochard · 09-05-2013, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

The source is excellent, and they have some balls for running that story.

And exactly what source is it?

Here is what the article says:

Quote:

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.

Well, name names. Is there any video footage of their interviews?

Why does the article say "many believe" instead of giving a direct quote from a single source that says "I am a rebel, and we have chemical weapons".

The article then goes on to state:

Quote:

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.

Again, we using the term "many". No names, but "many people believe". Many people believe the moon landing was faked too. The father says "My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were" but doesn't answer the question directly. Most likely he is unqualified to answer the question; I am guessing the father of a rebel fighter doesn't know what chemical weapons would look like.

Then....

Quote:

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.

What tunnel? Did the UN inspectors have access to this tunnel? If not, why not?

Who is Abu Ayesha? He seems to be a Saudi Militant, but does mean he is from Saudi Arabia or he is member of the government in Saudi Arabia? Did he have the weapons himself, or did he get them from Saudi Arabia? How were they transported? What faction is Abu Ayesha from?

Then we have the text that kills any credibility this so called news site has:

This kind of evil happens because of sin and mankind's rebellion to God's word. Little do these men realize is, that nothing in all of creation is hidden from God?s sight.

Quote:

Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account, Hebrews 4:13.

What the fuck kind of mumbo jumbo is that? Clearly not an article written by unbiased person.

I'm not saying I believe our government or the UN; I'm not saying the rebels didn't have a small amount of chemical weapons. What I am saying is that you have a poorly written article with no facts and no proof; Nothing said can be verified. I can understand the rebels and their families might not want their names printed, but if nothing can be verified... It's no longer a news article and much more of an opinon piece.

Toss in some bible quotes and I don't believe a word written.

On top of this, I find it difficult to believe that the Saudis would have chemical weapons, no less be willing to give them to a rebel force. I would be much more inclined to believe the rebels "liberated" the weapons from a Syrian government stash, and used them without knowing what they were. (Take that for what's it worth.)

Come to think of it, what is the US claiming and what did Kerry present as facts? Does their side add up to anything better? Can the US or the UN say "At 3am four trucks left the [military depot name] where chemical weapons are known to be stored and traveled thirty miles to the site where [Syrian military person name here] gave the order to use them"? I am guessing not.

dyna mo · 09-05-2013, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purecane

aren't the rebels al-queda? and aren't we the ones funding them? sooo, does that make the US government responsible for the chemical weapons?

i could be wrong, but that's my

my understanding is that an *extreme* faction of the rebel forces are in fact al qeuda. ~10% is the # i've read.

it's also my understanding that the rebel forces are more intent on securing their particular region/territory of syria rather than fight assad's forces on a unified front.

i would not say it makes usa responsible for the chemical weapons but it doesn't rule it out necc. we do know that assad has built 5 major chemical weapons stations and his father before him was an advocate of using them to quell opposition.

so it would make sense that syria has their own chemical weapons industry. they are not relying on new missiles either, scud missiles, etc.

+ from what i've read they buy a ton of military shit directly from russia so it actually seems not likey the usa is complicit in syria's chem weapons.

the op and all of this prove one thing- going in there/bombing/attacking is a bad idea. for so many reasons.

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

Yup - except I never mentioned the propagandistic piece of garbage that is Fox News, and there's also the detail that my personal politics run probably into the radical spectrum of left-wing. There's that.

Good advice on the 'go away' part though, no use arguing with morons.

sure, but your overall point would mean that fox news is 'credible', whereas articles coming from unbiased sources isn't. nicely done

Regardless, you got to use that special college trick, however, loss of points for not utilizing 'et al'.

i entirely agree.

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And exactly what source is it?

Here is what the article says:

Well, name names. Is there any video footage of their interviews?

Why does the article say "many believe" instead of giving a direct quote from a single source that says "I am a rebel, and we have chemical weapons".

The article then goes on to state:

Again, we using the term "many". No names, but "many people believe". Many people believe the moon landing was faked too. The father says "My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were" but doesn't answer the question directly. Most likely he is unqualified to answer the question; I am guessing the father of a rebel fighter doesn't know what chemical weapons would look like.

Then....

What tunnel? Did the UN inspectors have access to this tunnel? If not, why not?

Who is Abu Ayesha? He seems to be a Saudi Militant, but does mean he is from Saudi Arabia or he is member of the government in Saudi Arabia? Did he have the weapons himself, or did he get them from Saudi Arabia? How were they transported? What faction is Abu Ayesha from?

Then we have the text that kills any credibility this so called news site has:

This kind of evil happens because of sin and mankind's rebellion to God's word. Little do these men realize is, that nothing in all of creation is hidden from God?s sight.

What the fuck kind of mumbo jumbo is that? Clearly not an article written by unbiased person.

I'm not saying I believe our government or the UN; I'm not saying the rebels didn't have a small amount of chemical weapons. What I am saying is that you have a poorly written article with no facts and no proof; Nothing said can be verified. I can understand the rebels and their families might not want their names printed, but if nothing can be verified... It's no longer a news article and much more of an opinon piece.

Toss in some bible quotes and I don't believe a word written.

On top of this, I find it difficult to believe that the Saudis would have chemical weapons, no less be willing to give them to a rebel force. I would be much more inclined to believe the rebels "liberated" the weapons from a Syrian government stash, and used them without knowing what they were. (Take that for what's it worth.)

Come to think of it, what is the US claiming and what did Kerry present as facts? Does their side add up to anything better? Can the US or the UN say "At 3am four trucks left the [military depot name] where chemical weapons are known to be stored and traveled thirty miles to the site where [Syrian military person name here] gave the order to use them"? I am guessing not.

welcome to the wonderful world of 'what really happened'.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 09-05-2013, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

As usual these sources are retarded.

Examiner.com is an "amateur" news site where anyone can publish stories, there's no real central editorial control or vetting of content - as a result they routinely plagiarize legit articles and publish total bullshit.

Mint Press is an idealistic little startup by inexperienced students & amateurs. Their heart is in the right place IMO and I dig the focus on human rights & social justice, but these are not seasoned correspondents. All they do in their article is repeat speculation by random people and quote various other news stories in 'real' newspapers, then plop a provocative headline on it to get pageviews. There's zero independent verification by any of the writers.

I'm against action in Syria, but I'm also against shitty journalism and people who regurgitate it as fact because it backs up their worldview.

Good post. Always consider the source...

Let's start with the writer of the article, Joseph Parker:

Quote:

Joseph has been writing for 33 years from the heart, he draws from his life's experiences to help others learn from his successes and failures.

In 2008 Joseph received a diploma from SMTI, an institute with high standards that develop and train helps ministers for work in the ministry. In early 2009 he become a contributing writer for Grace and Mercy an online magazine that deals with the everyday struggles that affect Christians.

SMTI?!? Never heard of it:

Quote:

The name SMTI stands for Supernatural Ministries Training Institute

Quote:

SMTI's curriculum includes three different courses of study. Each course is designed to be completed in a nine-month period (30 weeks of teaching). All classes are taught by Dr. Mark T. Barclay, founder and president of SMTI located in Midland, Michigan.

You will receive a notebook, outlines, and books to assist you in the ministry, as well as Spirit-filled Bible teaching to equip you for the move of God today. You will be guided, encouraged, and challenged by the staff. You will be practically and spiritually equipped for the ministry you are called to.

http://www.integritychristiancenter.com/smti/

If you look at a random selection of Joseph Parker's articles you will find a Christian spin on everything, with scripture used to summarize what the presented info means or that it was obviously part of the Christian God's plan.

Joseph Parker:

Here is Parker's hard hitting reporting on Sydney Leathers of Weinergate fame:

Quote:

Most of us have at least heard the name Sydney Leathers, for those who haven't she is the "sextexting" partner of Anthony Weiner. Together they engaged in unscrupulous behavior.

The pornographic acts they did behind closed doors are now splashed all over the Internet.

Yesterday on the Daily News website a report was filed that shows what lengths she will take to remain in the limelight. She is using the scandal between her and Weiner "to leverage media interviews."

She's been on the Howard Stern show and even appeared in a short Vivid Adult Entertainment video. It would seem she has no self-control in displaying her body to anyone who will pay to see it.

Quote:

The mentality of people like Leathers is part of the reason our nation is in such a state of decay that it is. Sexual immorality is just one of many reasons for our decline. The word of God gives us a clear warning when it comes to encountering women such as Leathers.

We would do well to pay attention and heed the words found in Proverbs chapter 5. Verses 3-6 says, "3- For the lips of an immoral woman are as sweet as honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil. 4- But in the end she is as bitter as poison, as dangerous as a double-edged sword.

5- Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave. 6- For she cares nothing about the path to life. She staggers down a crooked trail and doesn’t realize it. In order to remain on the path leading to life we don't need to stray away from the words of warning found in Proverbs 5.

Verses eight through 14 continues with the warning, "Stay away from her! Don’t go near the door of her house! 9-If you do, you will lose your honor and will lose to merciless people all you have achieved. 10- Strangers will consume your wealth, and someone else will enjoy the fruit of your labor. 1- In the end you will groan in anguish when disease consumes your body.

12-You will say, “How I hated discipline! If only I had not ignored all the warnings! 13- Oh, why didn’t I listen to my teachers? Why didn’t I pay attention to my instructors? 14- I have come to the brink of utter ruin, and now I must face public disgrace.”

Many good men have been brought to ruin by women like Leathers. Those men could not control their sexual urges and were consumed by their own desires. They gave into temptation and did not heed God's dire warning found throughout the bible but especially in Proverbs 5.

If we find ourselves wanting to yield to temptation that's when we need to cry out to God for strength. Isaiah 41:10 says, "Don’t be afraid, for I am with you. Don’t be discouraged, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you. I will hold you up with my victorious right hand."

As long as we depend on God we will receive help in the time of our troubles and sorrows. If we do what Galatians 5:16 says, "So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves."

It takes constant prayer and fellowship with the father to achieve victory over our sinful flesh. Ultimately Jesus was our perfect example and if we follow in his footsteps we will live a successful Christian life.

Must be a media conspiracy to silence the Supernatural Ministries Training Institute.

ADG

CaptainHowdy · 09-05-2013, 12:47 PM

Bunch of pansies ...

baddog · 09-05-2013, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Good post. Always consider the source...

Let's start with the writer of the article, Joseph Parker:

SMTI?!? Never heard of it:

http://www.integritychristiancenter.com/smti/

If you look at a random selection of Joseph Parker's articles you will find a Christian spin on everything, with scripture used to summarize what the presented info means or that it was obviously part of the Christian God's plan.

Joseph Parker:

Here is Parker's hard hitting reporting on Sydney Leathers of Weinergate fame:

Must be a media conspiracy to silence the Supernatural Ministries Training Institute.

ADG

And now you know why I stopped giving them content

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Good post. Always consider the source...

Let's start with the writer of the article, Joseph Parker:

SMTI?!? Never heard of it:

http://www.integritychristiancenter.com/smti/

If you look at a random selection of Joseph Parker's articles you will find a Christian spin on everything, with scripture used to summarize what the presented info means or that it was obviously part of the Christian God's plan.

Joseph Parker:

Here is Parker's hard hitting reporting on Sydney Leathers of Weinergate fame:

Must be a media conspiracy to silence the Supernatural Ministries Training Institute.

ADG

damn, that's a lot of time debunking someone who just shared an article written by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Abadneh

I do agree about knowing your sources, however

deltav · 09-05-2013, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Good post. Always consider the source..

Apparently when you do, you get called a Fox News apologist (*shudder*) and then instructed to 'go away'. Just more insightful discussion from Richard.

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

Apparently when you do, you get called a Fox News apologist (*shudder*) and then instructed to 'go away'. Just more insightful discussion from Richard.

the point still stands. if it ran on fox news, there would be no question.

which, is hilarious.

Rochard · 09-05-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

welcome to the wonderful world of 'what really happened'.

Well, it's not like we haven't been lied to before huh?

Then we have the UN. Sometimes I believe the UN is nothing more than a pawn of the United States. Let's just say they are completely un-biased... Could they just be wrong?

There is lots of proof there was a chemical attack. But did the President of Syria athorize it? Did someone in the government launch the attack intentionally? Did someone in the Syrian military use the wrong shells? Did the rebels come across a cache of chemical weapons and not know what they were? Did the rebels come across chemical weapons, and knowingly use them hoping it would be blamed on the Syrian military?

Barry-xlovecam · 09-05-2013, 01:18 PM

No match for "CRACKPOTNEWSNETWORK.COM".
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 20:23:16 UTC <<<

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Well, it's not like we haven't been lied to before huh?

Then we have the UN. Sometimes I believe the UN is nothing more than a pawn of the United States. Let's just say they are completely un-biased... Could they just be wrong?

There is lots of proof there was a chemical attack. But did the President of Syria athorize it? Did someone in the government launch the attack intentionally? Did someone in the Syrian military use the wrong shells? Did the rebels come across a cache of chemical weapons and not know what they were? Did the rebels come across chemical weapons, and knowingly use them hoping it would be blamed on the Syrian military?

China have just deployed their warships into the area. Can you provide an American news site that is reporting that?

deltav · 09-05-2013, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

There is lots of proof there was a chemical attack. But did the President of Syria athorize it? Did someone in the government launch the attack intentionally? Did someone in the Syrian military use the wrong shells? Did the rebels come across a cache of chemical weapons and not know what they were? Did the rebels come across chemical weapons, and knowingly use them hoping it would be blamed on the Syrian military?

That covers the most likely scenarios, and yeah - a shit-ton of questions there.

For me, that's all secondary to the fact that the West has no clear objective or parameters over there. Bring down Assad? Not gonna happen and even if it were a possibility, there's no good successor.

Lob a few cruise missiles as a slap on the wrist? My guess is this is the likely outcome, probably some innocent people die, Assad weathers that no problem and the war continues, the USA & whoever else participates look like idiots for blowing a few things up in a pointless gesture. Again that probably kills civilians.

Even with that bare minimum there are so many ways the intervention escalates. The sad reality is that Syria is now a failed state where no one can maintain central control, and the fighting is going to drag on for a good long time. Eventually (if not this time) some other powers are going to get involved and the thing will become a bigger mess.

My main point is, as a general pacifist I'm opposed to military interventions unless there's a huge clear-cut humanitarian stake (*some* parts of the Yugoslavian War fit this IMO, not all tho), but if you're going to do it have a set and achievable goal and a good understanding of what's happening on the ground. Otherwise stay the fuck out.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 09-05-2013, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

damn, that's a lot of time debunking someone who just shared an article written by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Abadneh

I do agree about knowing your sources, however

More?

From the right (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting):

Quote:

Unlike the U.S. government, Mint does not have much of a track record, having been founded only about a year and a half ago (CJR, 3/28/12). The founder of the for-profit startup is Mnar Muhawesh, a 24-year-old Palestinian-American woman who believes, reasonably enough, that "our media has absolutely failed our country"

One of its two reporters on its Syrian chemical weapons piece, Dale Gavlak, is a longtime Associated Press Mideast stringer who has also done work for NPR and the BBC.

Quote:

Yahya Ababneh, a Jordanian freelancer and journalism grad student?who "spoke directly with the rebels, their family members, victims of the chemical weapons attacks and local residents." The article reports that "many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out" the chemical attack.

Quote:

independent media accounts are not necessarily more credible than official reports?or vice versa. As with the government white paper, there are gaps in the Mint account; while Abdel-Moneim cites his late son's account of carrying chemical weapons, the rebels quoted do not indicate how they came to know what they say they know about the origin of the weapons.

A more thorough debunking:

http://antoningregoire.wordpress.com...-saudi-arabia/

Quote:

The Lie :

First the obvious lie : Dale Gavlak is not an AP correspondant. Gavlak has been on a few stories (here is the list : these are much less controversial) but in this case, Gavlak works for Mintpress, a young info website close to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Gavlak has, via twitter, tried to specify that the article was not an AP Story. But of course, it was the AP initials that interested conspirationists and pro-Assad websites : Infowars called AP and asked them if Dale Gavlak had worked for them. AP said yes and now Infowars can say it is confirmed Dale Gavlak works for AP.

Gavlak also works for the Times of Israel. Although it is not a crime, Gavlak is a « Times of Israel » reporter as much as an AP reporter but somehow, that part of Gavlak?s CV does not appear on infowars or other conspirationists and anti-imperiaists websites.

The second obvious lie is the disclaimer in the very end of the article that reads :

Some information in this article could not be independently verified. Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates.

At the very least, this one should be the first paragraph of the article. It is also impossible in the article to know which information has not been verified and which one is confirmed.

Mintpress has, after a day of controversy over its article, added another disclaimer, in the beginning of the article:

Clarification: Dale Gavlak assisted in the research and writing process of this article, but was not on the ground in Syria. Reporter Yahya Ababneh, with whom the report was written in collaboration, was the correspondent on the ground in Ghouta who spoke directly with the rebels, their family members, victims of the chemical weapons attacks and local residents. Gavlak is a MintPress News Middle East correspondent who has been freelancing for the AP as a Amman, Jordan correspondent for nearly a decade. This report is not an Associated Press article; rather it is exclusive to MintPress News.

This second disclaimer makes the article weaker than the original version. The heart of the story (rebels claiming to mishandle chemical weapons) has not been brought by Gavlak (with the trusted AP credentials) but by Yahya Ababneh who was no one before this big scoop.

Weak testimonies and sources :

The info itself relies on a few very weak testimonies, here is the full list :

- Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
- Ghouta townspeople said
- A female fighter named ?K.?
- A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ?J?
- More than a dozen rebels interviewed (who reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.)
- Rebels interviewed

Apart from the testimonies, the article relies on other articles to strengthen the idea of a Saudi involvement.

First, an article from business insiders written by Geoffrey Ingersoll. Please note that Ingersoll is a Operation Iraqi Freedom combat veteran and writes things like ?The UK Was Totally Justified Detaining Greenwald?s Partner?.

The Ingersoll article for its part relies on a Daily Telegraph article which relies entirely on an As Safir article (Lebanese 8 march ? pro-Assad ? newspaper). As Safir details a secret meeting between Putin and Bin Sultan (Saudi Intelligence Chief). On this occasion, Bin Sultan would have threatened Putin of Chechen terrorist attacks if Russia refuses to comply to Saudi demands on Syria.

As Safir is usually not a bad newspaper but here, they appear to be too good (here is the article): they are somehow able to get the exact quotes from a top secret meeting between Bandar Bin Sultan, chief of Saudi Intelligence and Russian President Wladimir Putin. The info in itself, Bandar Bin Sultan manipulating Chechen terrorists is surprising. It is the first time such a claim appears. More likely, and more well documented : the Russian secret services are infiltrating and manipulating Chechen terrorists for 30 years now.

Still, quoting Ingersoll, Gavlak puts in the article the exact quotes of a top secret meeting between the two most secretive people on the planet, obtained by a pro-Assad Lebanese newspaper and confirming a Saudi plot to manipulate Chechen terrorists in Russia?

The second piece Mintpress article is using is a WSJ piece about Bandar Bin Sultan (here is the WSJ article). The WSJ piece counts for almost 20% of the Mintpress article (1537 signs out of 7533) However, Dale Gavlak and Yahya forgot one quote from the WSJ article

The Saudi plan is to steadily strengthen carefully selected groups of rebel fighters not in the radical Islamist camp, with the goal of someday seeing them in control in Damascus

This quote is important because it completely destroys all the argument in mintpress article saying Saudi gave Chemical Weapons to Al Quaeda.

Already debunked :

For the rest of Dale Gavlak article, Brown Moses (who runs an extremely well documented blog about weapons used in Syria) already tried to debunk the info. He asks 4 experts to examine the claims made by mintpress. Here are the conclusions he found. To sum up :
Saudis (who does not have any known CW program) would not be stupid enough to get caught with chemical weapon trying to give them to rebels
If they were stupid enough to do it they would at least have trained the rebels properly to use them.
Even if all the above were true the scale of the attack is too large to have been carried out by rebels.

There is another hint in the article that leads toward a Syrian Mukhabarat propaganda. Syrian Mukhabarat are obsessed with prince Bandar Bin Sultan. In the end of March 2011, Syrian regime newspapers ran out a story about the « Bin Sultan plan to destabilise Syria and create Chaos inside the country ». The title itself is a bit too much but regime newpapers simply copy pasted the « plan » which looks so perfectly detailed that it becomes impossible to believe. (Here is the Bin Sultan plan)

In the Mintpress article, references to Bin Sultan are overwhelming. 15 times his name is mentioned. The case could be credible if it had stayed on a geopolitical level, simply saying « Saudi Arabia » as vague geopolitical enemy who plots against Syria. But the Bin Sultan obsession goes too far to be credible. One of the last sentence of the article is

Rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as ?al-Habib? or ?the lover? by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.

Gavlak is supposed to have been co-writer to the article. Gavlak is also deeply obsessed with Al Quaeda (here is an article from Gavlak where Al Quaeda is linked to everything that happens in the Middle-East). Anyone claiming to have the slightest knowledge of the middle east would know no Al Quaeda militant would ever refer to the chief of saudi intelligence as « Al Habib ».

Eventually, the article concludes on a weakness, quoting Peter Osborne from the Daily Telegraph.
Osborne argument relies on Del Ponte « conclusions » that the rebels were responsible for last may chemical attack. We debunked this story on a previous post and Gavlak AP should have done the very same.

The Truth :

The « info » went viral on conspirationists and pro-Assad websites and also on antiwar websites which are the reading target of mintpress.

I'll wait for further corroboration before drawing any conclusions, but to date, I do not feel there is a strong case for bombing anyone over the chemical weapons used in Syria, since there is still no conclusive proof about which group/faction is responsible.

With that said, it defies logic to me that Assad would have used chemical weapons at this point, and even less likely if he did, that he will use them again. What would be gained?

In my mind, the rebels would be more likely to have staged their own false flag operation to blame the Assad regime, and get the US and perhaps other nations to bomb the government.

ADG

bronco67 · 09-05-2013, 01:48 PM

These "stories" will be floating around because people want it to be true, for some reason. It's far more likely that it was done by Assad's regime, who have exempted themselves from international law regarding chemical weapons -- and have the military systems to deliver them also. We should still probably stay out of their business.

dyna mo · 09-05-2013, 01:50 PM

the objective has been clearly stated.

punish assad and send a message to other countries.

deltav · 09-05-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

the objective has been clearly stated.

punish assad and send a message to other countries.

But that's a completely open-ended objective. What constitutes an adequate "punishment"? What "sends a message"?

Not saying that to argue, I'm genuinely curious.

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

More?

From the right (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting):

A more thorough debunking:

http://antoningregoire.wordpress.com...-saudi-arabia/

I'll wait for further corroboration before drawing any conclusions, but to date, I do not feel there is a strong case for bombing anyone over the chemical weapons used in Syria, since there is still no conclusive proof about which group/faction is responsible.

With that said, it defies logic to me that Assad would have used chemical weapons at this point, and even less likely if he did, that he will use them again. What would be gained?

In my mind, the rebels would be more likely to have staged their own false flag operation to blame the Assad regime, and get the US and perhaps other nations to bomb the government.

ADG

http://antoningregoire.wordpress.com...-saudi-arabia/

this is the source you used to debunk something?

are you serious?

'Antonin Grégoire ‏@Antonyn6 13h
@Partisangirl And if Bashar is the traitor?
View conversation'

real unbiased reporting you got there. well done. lol.

baddog · 09-05-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

But that's a completely open-ended objective. What constitutes an adequate "punishment"? What "sends a message"?

Not saying that to argue, I'm genuinely curious.

From the hearings: The message is to Iran and North Korea that when we tell them they can't do this, that or the other thing (ie: own nukes) is that if we are willing to bomb Syria we will be willing to bomb them; and if we are not willing to stop Syria, we certainly will not follow thru on our threats to Iran/N Korea.

dyna mo · 09-05-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

But that's a completely open-ended objective. What constitutes an adequate "punishment"? What "sends a message"?

Not saying that to argue, I'm genuinely curious.

that's partly my point. this is the offical line we as the public are being given, as this thread shows, it's a massive clusterfuck. i mean beyond the typical middle east killing each other stuff.

so to even suggest we're going to teach someone over there a lesson for dropping bombs by dropping bombs on them? yup, that's the plan..

not to mention, 100,000+ already dead. MANY of those were tortured and raped then murdered children.

yeah, we're gonna teach that sort of person a lesson with our hypocritical bombs. it's like i was mentioning elsewhere, lets' drop our mk7 fire bomb on em. certainly a chem weapon and not precision, but we use em.

deltav · 09-05-2013, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

From the hearings: The message is to Iran and North Korea that when we tell them they can't do this, that or the other thing (ie: own nukes) is that if we are willing to bomb Syria we will be willing to bomb them; and if we are not willing to stop Syria, we certainly will not follow thru on our threats to Iran/N Korea.

Yeah, I get the rationale behind it. I mean, from a practical standpoint what would have to be achieved to consider the message 'sent'.

My take is that short of a massive sustained strike that destabilizes Assad's regime (not necessarily the ideal outcome in the long run), I'm not sure what will effectively serve notice.

dyna mo · 09-05-2013, 02:14 PM

here's the other thing to consider. according to some reports, the chem strike was indeed by assad's forces, commanded by his younger brother, they've even pinppointed the battalions that launched the strikes.

the rationale behind the strike was to quell the uprising there, the syrian spring. by all accounts, assad's dropping chem bombs not only did not quell the uprising, the bombings have fueled it and by some accounts, was the catalyst for escalating it all to civil war.

and so we're gonna drop bombs over there to send a message? they are not going to get that message.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 09-05-2013, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

http://antoningregoire.wordpress.com...-saudi-arabia/

this is the source you used to debunk something?

are you serious?

real unbiased reporting you got there. well done. lol.

Since I already have cited an article to debunk the article you cited, please tell me which points the blog writer I cited was making in the debunk article that you specifically disagree with?

The person writing was not reporting, but instead analyzing the MintPress reporting. I didn't get a sense of an agenda in the debunk story.

For what it's worth, the same author disputes and debunks pro-bomb Syria propaganda as well:

Quote:

DEBUNKED: The UN says Syrian rebels are responsible for sarin gas attack

2
SEP
This post is the 2nd of our series where we will try to debunk lies and propaganda found on the Internet and the media in recent days. Many are coming from pro-Assad, extreme right and conspirationist networks and they found their ways into honest or naive anti-war activists. We are paying a severe price of Bush?s and Blair lies about Iraq and pro-Assad propaganda is using that to infiltrate media and social networks with false rumors and half truth arguments. We will try to debunk them the best we can.

The case :

The UN says that the rebels are responsible for sarin gas attack.

The Lie :

No UN body or commission ever came to that conclusion. The propaganda is using an interview Carla del Ponte, member of the International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (which is not the special UN body sent to investigate chemical attacks) made last may.

Del Ponte?s comments are used without date so as to induce that del Ponte is commenting last august chemical attack that happened in damascus suburbs, Ghouta. The idea is that no one is going to read the article (and check the date) but the title and the link will go viral under the title « UN says rebels are responsible for chemical attack ». In the end, it will lead people to believe rebels are responsible for Al Ghouta chemical attack that happened in august.

Anyone who reads the date or the article can see this allegation relies on the comments Del Ponte had last may.

Here is an article that went viral on social networks. It is serious article but it was usually posted without the date so if you do not follow the link and read the article you may end up thinking it is a recent news about al Ghouta chemical attack.

Here is another article written on august 27 but also entirely relying on the comments del Ponte had last may. Again if no one reads it, it appears as if del Ponte?s comments were made last week.

Eventually, for French readers, here is a op-ed from Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (who ran for presidential elections) who also relies on del Ponte?s comments. Dupont-Aignant is a moderate center right political leader

The conclusions of the UN investigators that were officialised last may by Carla del Ponte revealed that Syrian opposition did use chemical weapons on Khan al-Aassal.

The Truth :

Del Ponte made a personal comment during an interview to RSI on may 6 2013. (here the story on BBC)

She said ?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.?

Although she is a member of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (which is not specifically investigating Chemical Weapons) her comments were not an official conclusion. The official reaction to Del Ponte comments from the commission can be found here

The statement reads :

Geneva, 6 May 2013 ? The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic wishes to clarify that it has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict. As a result, the Commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time.

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic did issue a report with its findings and conclusions. The report can be found here (in pdf)

The official conclusion (supported by del Ponte) is :

« There are reasonable grounds to believe that chemical agents have been used as weapons. The precise agents, delivery systems or perpetrators could not be identified. »

The report also says, on the matter of chemical weapons, that

Conclusive findings ? particularly in the absence of a large-scale attack ? may be reached only after testing samples taken directly from victims or the site of the alleged attack. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the Panel of Experts, led by Professor Sellström and assembled under the Secretary General?s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons, is granted full access to Syria.

This official recommendation, issued by the very commission where del Ponte is a member, was made on june 4 2013, two and a half month before Assad agrees to let Sellström into Syria.

Once again, I'll wait for further corroboration before drawing any conclusions, but to date, I do not feel there is a strong case for bombing anyone over the chemical weapons used in Syria, since there is still no conclusive proof about which group/faction is responsible.

With that said, it defies logic to me that Assad would have used chemical weapons at this point, and even less likely if he did, that he will use them again. What would be gained?

In my mind, the rebels would be more likely to have staged their own false flag operation to blame the Assad regime, and get the US and perhaps other nations to bomb the government.

ADG

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Since I already have cited an article to debunk the article you cited, please tell me which points the blog writer I cited was making in the debunk article that you specifically disagree with?

The person writing was not reporting, but instead analyzing the MintPress reporting. I didn't get a sense of an agenda in the debunk story.

For what it's worth, the same author disputes and debunks pro-bomb Syria propaganda as well:

Once again, I'll wait for further corroboration before drawing any conclusions, but to date, I do not feel there is a strong case for bombing anyone over the chemical weapons used in Syria, since there is still no conclusive proof about which group/faction is responsible.

With that said, it defies logic to me that Assad would have used chemical weapons at this point, and even less likely if he did, that he will use them again. What would be gained?

In my mind, the rebels would be more likely to have staged their own false flag operation to blame the Assad regime, and get the US and perhaps other nations to bomb the government.

ADG

you cited three paragraphs from a rather long article that neither confirms nor denies anything, while saying 'things aren't clear'

i especially enjoyed your focus on the founder and her gender. Real important.

are you able to show, simply, what has been debunked?

Sly · 09-05-2013, 02:30 PM

"Stop watching Fox News."

Such an intelligent, well thought out counterargument. Cheers.

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

"Stop watching Fox News."

Such an intelligent, well thought out counterargument. Cheers.

if it ran on fox news, would it have been 'not credible'?

deltav · 09-05-2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

if it ran on fox news, would it have been 'not credible'?

I think you overestimate the general population's opinion of Fox News. They're viewed as gospel truth by their whatever % of devoted slack jawed idiots who are their target audience, no one else takes anything they say seriously.

Minte · 09-05-2013, 02:53 PM

I've grown so cynical about politics, all I see is having a war is a good distraction from all the scandals Obama is facing.

_Richard_ · 09-05-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

I think you overestimate the general population's opinion of Fox News. They're viewed as gospel truth by their whatever % of devoted slack jawed idiots who are their target audience, no one else takes anything they say seriously.

if the story ran on fox news, would we have discussed if it is credible

ANAL PASTE · 09-05-2013, 02:56 PM

Too late, our government already made a decision.

bronco67 · 09-05-2013, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltav

I think you overestimate the general population's opinion of Fox News. They're viewed as gospel truth by their whatever % of devoted slack jawed idiots who are their target audience, no one else takes anything they say seriously.

I went on vacation in Maryland recently, and in every bar or restaurant I was in, FOX news was on the TV. I couldn't help but think how misinformed these people are.

09-05-2013, 09:04 AM	#2
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,969	We don't want to see this! __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

09-05-2013, 10:48 AM	#6
deltav Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2010 Location: USA Posts: 1,243	As usual these sources are retarded. Examiner.com is an "amateur" news site where anyone can publish stories, there's no real central editorial control or vetting of content - as a result they routinely plagiarize legit articles and publish total bullshit. Mint Press is an idealistic little startup by inexperienced students & amateurs. Their heart is in the right place IMO and I dig the focus on human rights & social justice, but these are not seasoned correspondents. All they do in their article is repeat speculation by random people and quote various other news stories in 'real' newspapers, then plop a provocative headline on it to get pageviews. There's zero independent verification by any of the writers. I'm against action in Syria, but I'm also against shitty journalism and people who regurgitate it as fact because it backs up their worldview. __________________ ********* DeltaofVenus.com - Vintage Erotica from the 1800s through 1979

09-05-2013, 11:22 AM	#15
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	So, so far we "know" it was mishandling of chemical weapons in the hands of rebels, it was also launched from a ship in the Mediterranean sea, in addition to actual intelligence agencies who tracked the launch from within gov. controlled areas, intercepted orders for troops to be ready with gas masks and supposedly intercepted various terrorists saying that Assad had lost his nerve and ordered the attacks. Pick your theory, step right up. Win a Kewpie doll for your sweetheart. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

09-05-2013, 11:39 AM	#16
purecane Annakin Skywalker Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: megaminds' secret lair Posts: 1,324	i'm confused aren't the rebels al-queda? and aren't we the ones funding them? sooo, does that make the US government responsible for the chemical weapons? i could be wrong, but that's my __________________ [email protected]

09-05-2013, 01:48 PM	#34
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,032	These "stories" will be floating around because people want it to be true, for some reason. It's far more likely that it was done by Assad's regime, who have exempted themselves from international law regarding chemical weapons -- and have the military systems to deliver them also. We should still probably stay out of their business. __________________ Last edited by bronco67; 09-05-2013 at 02:01 PM..

09-05-2013, 09:05 AM	#3
pornmasta Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 19,213	need more sources

09-05-2013, 09:09 AM	#5
pornmasta Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 19,213	hacking disinformation ...

09-05-2013, 12:47 PM	#24
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,561	Bunch of pansies ...

09-05-2013, 01:18 PM	#30
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	No match for "CRACKPOTNEWSNETWORK.COM". >>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 20:23:16 UTC <<<

09-05-2013, 01:50 PM	#35
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,347	the objective has been clearly stated. punish assad and send a message to other countries.

09-05-2013, 02:14 PM	#41
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,347	here's the other thing to consider. according to some reports, the chem strike was indeed by assad's forces, commanded by his younger brother, they've even pinppointed the battalions that launched the strikes. the rationale behind the strike was to quell the uprising there, the syrian spring. by all accounts, assad's dropping chem bombs not only did not quell the uprising, the bombings have fueled it and by some accounts, was the catalyst for escalating it all to civil war. and so we're gonna drop bombs over there to send a message? they are not going to get that message.

09-05-2013, 02:30 PM	#44
Sly Let's do some business! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 31,327	"Stop watching Fox News." Such an intelligent, well thought out counterargument. Cheers. __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted Windows VPS now available Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc. Click here for more details.

09-05-2013, 02:53 PM	#47
Minte Babemeister Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Madison Posts: 7,081	I've grown so cynical about politics, all I see is having a war is a good distraction from all the scandals Obama is facing. __________________ You might not be as anonymous as you think you are.

09-05-2013, 02:56 PM	#49
ANAL PASTE Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Puget Sound, WA Posts: 9,069	Too late, our government already made a decision. __________________ SEE YOU IN VALHALLA, BRO