Posted on 09/12/2013 5:18:48 AM PDT by tobyhill
The military wing of the U.S.-backed Syrian National Coalition (SNC), an umbrella opposition group fighting against President Bashar Assad, has flatly rejected a proposal by Russia which would see the regime hand over control of its vast chemical weapons stockpiles to international control to avoid U.S. military strikes.
After more than two and a half years of bloodshed in Syria which has left more than 100,000 people dead and millions displaced, the Russian initiative was announced Monday and quickly agreed to by Assad's government.
The U.S., Israel and France have voiced cautious optimism that the plan could yield results, but remain skeptical that Syria is genuine in its offer to hand over the weapons, and concerned about how such an operation could actually function in a country where fighting between government forces and rebels is intensifying.
Late Wednesday, Gen. Salim Idriss, the head of the SNC's military council, said in a video posted online that he and his fellow rebel commanders "announce our definitive rejection of the Russian initiative to place chemical weapons under international custody."
"We ask that the international community not be content with withdrawing chemical weapons, which are a criminal instrument, but to hold the perpetrator accountable and prosecute him at the International Criminal Court," Idriss said, blaming Assad for an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburbs which the Obama administration says left at least 1,400 people dead.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Makes perfect sense... the Chem WMD users don’t get bombed by Ø, Assad gets bombed.
If the “freedom fighters” were truly outraged about the use of chemical weapons, they’d be thrilled that they were being given up by Syria. Their objection to this confirms that it was they who used those weapons and blamed it on the Syrian government.
LOL can this be MORE of a cluster-f**k ???
Hey Dumbocrats- NOW do you see what happens when you elect an incompetant boob????
(rhetorical- I know they have an inablity to learn)
It’s completely meaningless.
How can one side of a civil war reject a third-party proposal made to the other side of the civil war?
When the third party is a second party to a first party.
The question I would like asked of the President is the following: “Mr. President if it is determined that the rebels have use chemical weapons, will you bomb them?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.