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