Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.
from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
“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 of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels. Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.
EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Bob G on “getting smaller”
- Patrick Powers on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- dm on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Charles Higley on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- stewartpid on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- arn on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Disillusioned on Time Traveling Satellites
- Disillusioned on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.
Shades of the Tonkin Gulf.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoklqunA16s
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/05/bae-saudi-yamamah-deal-background
Why would the attack kill the attacker? It’s far more likely that some weapon storage area was bombed, releasing the gas; or the gas handlers made a mistake, killing themselves and releasing the gas. This, assuming there was some “gas” involved of course.
you and I are on the same page………..