I'll not come to any conclusion about this until other reports are available.

I recommend that for you, too. But you might ignore my suggestion.

Al-Arabiya is?

Of course I'll wait for other sources, but yes, I'm deeply distrustful of the Saudis. '

Always. I'll wait. I consider almost all of it to be unreliable without corroboration. And yes, I do know what Al-Arabiya is. Thanks. As unreliable as the rest of them.

They created it because they were tired of being skewered by Al Jazeera, and wanted to create a pro-Saudi competitor that would do their bidding.

They're about as reliable as RT or Fox News.

without corroboration from other sources.


Government-owned media should always be taken with a grain of salt unless corroborated. And Fox news, your other example, should be disregarded in all cases. It's proven to be incorrect so many times that it's not even worth looking at.

have the interests of the US at heart. I've even had to take a break from my beloved BBC, because hosts like Katty Kay & Mark Mardell have been at the forefront of pushing for some sort of US military action, and not calling on their own country to do the same.

Even if it's true, it still doesn't justify military action by the US. We have used DU, napalm, agent orange, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, land mines, torture, and gawd only knows what else. We've sold chemical weapons to rogue states, used our own civilians and military for medical experimentation (unbeknown to them), instigated civil wars in sovereign countries, deposed democratically leaders, attacked countries that didn't attack us, waged illegal and immoral wars, etc, etc, etc. All of those people are just as dead as are the victims of the sarin gas attacks in Syria. The idea that we, alone, are the arbitors of what weapons are not acceptable is ludicrous.

I won't hit you with the chickenhawk-go-enlist retort but if stopping Assad is really the goal and presumably allowing AQ to not take over is a priority just how big a war should we wage?

...with the limited purpose of disabling Assad's ability to deliver chemical weapon payloads...using the thoughtfulness of a President who's not George Bush or Dick Cheney.

is a meaningless statement when you have no idea what it will take to achieve that goal and have no way of even verifying if it is achieved.

...when the war has been underway for two years and has resisted any attempts at peaceful negotiation.

You've gone from neutralizing CWs to imposing peace on two factions who only want annihilation of their opposite member. You're not going to have peace unless you're willing to kill everyone who wants war. That's not "as small as possible."

I'm a retired Viet Nam era Navy nurse. I hope you never see what I've seen. I hope I never see it again. If you want war, enlist or send your family. I've seen all the death and destruction from war that I can stomach. You need to walk the walk. Talk is cheap when you don't have a dog in the fight.

Of course we paint our enemies as madmen any chance we get, but who believes Assad would commit suicide with a gas attack now that we're bearing down on him?

There is apparent philosophy among minority dictatorships that hey essentially have nothing to lose. The President/Dictator/General might escape to enjoy his embezzled billions in Monaco, but everyone below him faces a death sentence if the majority opposition ever overthrows them. So, as irrational as it might seem to us, use of WMD to cow the opposition might appear to be a rational action, especially is no repercussions are assumed.

but I think you'd have to be pretty crazy to unchain the US when world opinion is going your way. That's why I view reports like this with some skepticism.

let alone end it. Nothing of substance can be done short of a larger war.

Owned, along with the rest of the Middle East Broadcasting Center, by Saudi Prince and Cabinet Minister, Abdul Aziz bin Fahd and broadcast from Dubai by a bunch of wealthy playboys who offered to pick up the whole tab for our Syria Attack if we'll just be their mercenary army.

The US Governing Council banned it in Iraq because it was THAT full of lies and propaganda efforts to inflame sectarian hatred and cause more mayhem.

Citing Activists? No credibility.

But I have been told by some they are unreliable too.

Your best bet is to grab a camera and/or voice recorder and get your ass to Syria.

If you want things done, you gotta do it yourself.

It's an internecine squabble that's been going on between tribal leaders FOREVER, and at least the Arab League countries have oil-money they could use, and THEY benefit most (by proximity and refugee travelers), let THEM do the policing..