British prime minister: We have new evidence poison gas was used in Syria

  • Article by: RAPHAEL SATTER , Associated Press
  • Updated: September 5, 2013 - 6:01 PM

LONDON — U.K. scientists have found new evidence that poison gas was used last month outside the Syrian capital of Damascus, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday

  • 29
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
BadgerSep. 5, 13 1:13 PM

Then why doesn't the UK attack them then? They seem to be instigating and goading the US to attack Syria, but they don't want anything to do with it. Send your own military or just shut up about it!

circleoflifeSep. 5, 13 2:05 PM

What the STRIB isn't reporting is Russia has stated that they will block any missiles from the U.S. This is becoming a very scary situation.

EleanoreSep. 5, 13 2:19 PM

So the scope of comments that oppose this so far anectdotal evidence and justification for agression on the part of the US simply will not be tolerated at the failed DFL paper. Good to see.

unicorn4711Sep. 5, 13 2:23 PM

What we need is evidence that firing rockets and dropping bombs will make the situation better, not worse.

palsarSep. 5, 13 2:27 PM

"other leaders — including Cameron — have acknowledged lingering uncertainty over who exactly was behind the strike." --- Exactly, the rebels are just as likely to have used it.

dlzabzSep. 5, 13 2:33 PM

So, Assad has chemical weapons which is a US security risk as he may use chemical weapons against the US. So, the obvious choice is to help Al Qaida overthrow Assad so Al Qaida can have access to chemical weapons who will definitely use them against the US?

tmauelSep. 5, 13 2:35 PM

What credibility is there from the top war monger in England. Cameron has supported the lies of the Syrian rebels from the start. The British Parliament has rejected Camerons call for war and so have the American public. The U.S. House of Representatives will reject this nonsense shortly. The question, why is the Star Tribune editorializing for war and reprinting British propaganda for a war nobody wants?

EleanoreSep. 5, 13 2:49 PM

"The question, why is the Star Tribune editorializing for war and reprinting British propaganda for a war nobody wants?" - as a platform of support for the senators from Minnesota who would support storming Dinseyland if they thought it would be to their political benefit? Those senators are going to be coming off as war mongers to 90% of the american people, they already are to Minnesotans.

tmauelSep. 5, 13 2:53 PM

Why can't we get some reaction from local representatives on their positions for this upcoming war? Who cares about David Cameron's talking points for bombing Syria. Everyone knows he is a hawk. I would like to hear from Michelle Bachman who adamantly opposes the war and Keith Ellison who is a pro Obama war supporter. Britain had their vote in Parliament and Cameron lost. Let's here from our reps!

JP55901Sep. 5, 13 2:57 PM

Earth to the republicans/teapublicans: the current administration has NO designs on funding or supporting al-Qaeda in Syria.


Comment on this story   |  

  • 45°
  • 48/40
  • Cloudy

The Drive: Metro traffic


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters



question of the day

Poll: What's your main source for home video?

Weekly Question