The middle East

[Dujon]

Have you ever played "pick-up-sticks"?

[Hoboh]

Russian warships heading for the Eastern Med

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... AK20130829" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thebish]

there are a number of reports surfacing today - like this one - suggesting that there is at least a credible case to heard against the rebel forces for the gas attack...

http://www.examiner.com/article/breakin ... al-weapons

and here: http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-re ... ns-attack/

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

[thebish]

and alongside that... with a feeling of déjà vu..

Within hours of publication, the Obama administration's documentation on Syria, which is being used to support the case for US-led direct military strikes on the country, has been criticised for its lack of verifiable detail.

The three-page white paper, which claims to prove the culpability of the Assad regime for a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus, contains no direct quotes, no photographic evidence, no named sources, and no independently supported evidence, notes analyst Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. He now heads up the Consortium for Independent Journalism (CIJ) in the United States.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Jeremy Bowen is a cock. He has no idea about neutrality. None.

[Montreal Wanderer]

and alongside that... with a feeling of déjà vu..

Within hours of publication, the Obama administration's documentation on Syria, which is being used to support the case for US-led direct military strikes on the country, has been criticised for its lack of verifiable detail.

The three-page white paper, which claims to prove the culpability of the Assad regime for a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus, contains no direct quotes, no photographic evidence, no named sources, and no independently supported evidence, notes analyst Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. He now heads up the Consortium for Independent Journalism (CIJ) in the United States.

Are you suggesting you lack faith in Western intelligence gathering, bish, or believe in governmental unwillingness to tell the people the truth? Surely we couldn't be deceived. Again. So soon.

[Lord Kangana]

The Saudis are virtually a US puppet regime anyway. Although it has to be noted that about 10% of the US economy is entirely in their hands. It comes as no great surprise to hear of their alleged involvement.

[Harry Genshaw]

Thanks for the link Bish. That's one in the eye for cocks like Paddy Ashdown. I'm more proud of our parliament today than I ever have been

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The Saudis are virtually a US puppet regime anyway. Although it has to be noted that about 10% of the US economy is entirely in their hands. It comes as no great surprise to hear of their alleged involvement.

Where's this figure from?

Aren't the US on the cusp of becoming a net energy exporter and even a net oil exporter?

[Montreal Wanderer]

The Saudis are virtually a US puppet regime anyway. Although it has to be noted that about 10% of the US economy is entirely in their hands. It comes as no great surprise to hear of their alleged involvement.

Where's this figure from?

Aren't the US on the cusp of becoming a net energy exporter and even a net oil exporter?

I don't think so PB - not even close. This doesn't mean they couldn't be but they don't export, preferring to store or reserve.

[thebish]

The Saudis are virtually a US puppet regime anyway. Although it has to be noted that about 10% of the US economy is entirely in their hands. It comes as no great surprise to hear of their alleged involvement.

Where's this figure from?

Aren't the US on the cusp of becoming a net energy exporter and even a net oil exporter?

I don't think so PB - not even close. This doesn't mean they couldn't be but they don't export, preferring to store or reserve.

apart from about 124,000 barrels a day...

[Montreal Wanderer]

The Saudis are virtually a US puppet regime anyway. Although it has to be noted that about 10% of the US economy is entirely in their hands. It comes as no great surprise to hear of their alleged involvement.

Where's this figure from?

Aren't the US on the cusp of becoming a net energy exporter and even a net oil exporter?

I don't think so PB - not even close. This doesn't mean they couldn't be but they don't export, preferring to store or reserve.

apart from about 124,000 barrels a day...

According to the US Energy Administration they import some 8,000,000 barrels of crude oil a day. They export 52,000 barrels of crude oil a day. It is true they export more product derived from crude oil than they import by a ration of 3:2. Anyway, whether your 124k or the 52k quoted by the US Energy Administration is accurate, they still import many times as much as they export. I don't see that as close.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Put 'US net oil exporter' into Google and you'll find lots of articles on similar themes to this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22524597" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thebish]

The Saudis are virtually a US puppet regime anyway. Although it has to be noted that about 10% of the US economy is entirely in their hands. It comes as no great surprise to hear of their alleged involvement.

Where's this figure from?

Aren't the US on the cusp of becoming a net energy exporter and even a net oil exporter?

I don't think so PB - not even close. This doesn't mean they couldn't be but they don't export, preferring to store or reserve.

apart from about 124,000 barrels a day...

According to the US Energy Administration they import some 8,000,000 barrels of crude oil a day. They export 52,000 barrels of crude oil a day. It is true they export more product derived from crude oil than they import by a ration of 3:2. Anyway, whether your 124k or the 52k quoted by the US Energy Administration is accurate, they still import many times as much as they export. I don't see that as close.

i didn't say it was close - I was just saying that your statement that "they don't export" was not quite right.

also - your export figure is a bit low - perhaps out of date?? according to the very same US Energy Administration, US exports of Crude Oil over the last three months have been as follows:

April 2013: 132,000 bpd
May 2013: 125,000 bpd
June 2013: 120,000 bpd

which is pretty much what I said.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHa ... REXUS2&f=M

[thebish]

oops....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... ls-2242520

[William the White]

oops....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... ls-2242520

They admit issuing the licences but aren't they denying any sales were actually made? Or am I out of date on this?

[thebish]

oops....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... ls-2242520

They admit issuing the licences but aren't they denying any sales were actually made? Or am I out of date on this?

no - that's what is being said... the issuing of licenses is the government part - whether sales go ahead after that is then out of their hands, no?

i think what is being said is that the part where the gov. could have intervened - the issuing of the licenses - that's where the gov. failed to act... the sales didn't go ahead because of the later imposition of EU sanctions...

[BWFC_Insane]

oops....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... ls-2242520

They admit issuing the licences but aren't they denying any sales were actually made? Or am I out of date on this?

no - that's what is being said... the issuing of licenses is the government part - whether sales go ahead after that is then out of their hands, no?

i think what is being said is that the part where the gov. could have intervened - the issuing of the licenses - that's where the gov. failed to act... the sales didn't go ahead because of the later imposition of EU sanctions...

Bloody EU regulations getting in the way again eh?

[Bruce Rioja]

oops....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... ls-2242520

They admit issuing the licences but aren't they denying any sales were actually made? Or am I out of date on this?

no - that's what is being said... the issuing of licenses is the government part - whether sales go ahead after that is then out of their hands, no?

i think what is being said is that the part where the gov. could have intervened - the issuing of the licenses - that's where the gov. failed to act... the sales didn't go ahead because of the later imposition of EU sanctions...

Bloody EU regulations getting in the way again eh?

Well, we've got more to use on badgers now.

[BWFC_Insane]

oops....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... ls-2242520

They admit issuing the licences but aren't they denying any sales were actually made? Or am I out of date on this?

no - that's what is being said... the issuing of licenses is the government part - whether sales go ahead after that is then out of their hands, no?

i think what is being said is that the part where the gov. could have intervened - the issuing of the licenses - that's where the gov. failed to act... the sales didn't go ahead because of the later imposition of EU sanctions...

Bloody EU regulations getting in the way again eh?

Well, we've got more to use on badgers now.

I like badgers.