Carla Del Ponte said it best, there are “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that the rebels have used chemical weapons during the Syrian civil war. The evidence against the government is much weaker. Why aren’t we bombing the rebels, Mr. President, in particular the Al Nusra Front, against whom the evidence is strongest?
Note that the U.S. has just announced that indications of sarin gas are exactly what it claims to have found at the Ghouta chemical attack (or accident) site.
Again, the newest U.S. claim is that indications of sarin gas were found in Ghouta.
… 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 above indicates that the ‘attack’ was really an accidental release of sarin. In that case maybe we shouldn’t bomb Al Nusra Front. ;->
Earlier in the year there were reports like this:
Clearly an anti-rebel source, but the article is largely direct quotations of rebel leaders and their threats.