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.