Five
Lies Invented to Spin UN Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack
Global Research, September 17, 2013
As predicted days before the UN’s Syrian chemical weapons
report was made public, the West has begun spinning the findings to bolster
their faltering narrative regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks on August
21, 2013 in eastern Damascus, Syria. The goal of course, is to continue
demonizing the Syrian government while simultaneously sabotaging a recent
Syrian-Russian deal to have Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles verified and
disarmed by independent observers.
Image:
107mm rocket shells
frequently used by terrorists operating within and along Syria’s borders.
They are similar in configuration and function to those identified by the UN at
sites investigated after the alleged August 21, 2013 Damascus, Syria chemical
weapons attack, only smaller.
….
A barrage of suspiciously
worded headlines attempt to link in the mind of unobservant readers the UN’s
“confirmation” of chemical weapons use in Syria and Western claims that it was
the Syrian government who used them. Additionally, the US, British, and French
governments have quickly assembled a list of fabrications designed to spin the
UN report to bolster their still-unsubstantiated accusations against the Syrian
government.
The
UN report did not attribute blame for the attack, as that was not part of its
remit.
However,
that did not stop UK Foreign Secretary William Hague who claimed:
From
the wealth of technical detail in the report – including on the scale of the
attack, the consistency of sample test results from separate laboratories,
witness statements, and information on the munitions used and their
trajectories – it is abundantly clear that the Syrian regime is the only party
that could have been responsible.
And
US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power who stated:
The
technical details of the UN report make clear that only the regime could have
carried out this large-scale chemical weapons attack.
French
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius is also quoted as saying:
When
you look at the findings carefully, the quantities of toxic gas used, the
complexity of the mixes, the nature, and the trajectory of the carriers, it
leaves absolutely no doubt as to the origin of the attack.
The
Washington Post went one step further, and perhaps foolishly, laid out a
detailed explanation of each fabrication the West is using to spin the latest
UN report. In an article titled, “The U.N. chemical weapons report is pretty damning for Assad,”
5 points are made and explained as to why the UN report “points” to the Syrian
government.
1.
Chemical weapons were delivered with munitions not used by rebels: This claim
includes referencing “Syria watcher” Eliot Higgins also known as
“Brown Moses,” a UK-based armchair observer of the Syrian crisis who has
been documenting weapons used throughout the conflict on his blog.
While
Higgins explains these particularly larger diameter rockets (140mm and 330mm)
have not been seen (by him) in the hands of terrorists operating within and
along Syria’s borders, older posts of his show rockets similar in construction and
operation, but smaller, most certainly in the hands of the militants.
The
Washington Post contends that somehow these larger rockets require “technology”
the militants have no access to. This is categorically false. A rocket is
launched from a simple tube, and the only additional technology terrorists may
have required for the larger rockets would have been a truck to mount them on.
For an armed front fielding stolen tanks, finding trucks to mount large metal
tubes upon would seem a rather elementary task – especially to carry out a
staged attack that would justify foreign intervention and salvage their
faltering offensive.
2.
The sarin was fired from a regime-controlled area: The Washington Post contends
that:
The
report concludes that the shells came from the northwest of the targeted
neighborhood. That area was and is controlled by Syrian regime forces and is
awfully close to a Syrian military base. If the shells had been fired by Syrian
rebels, they likely would have come from the rebel-held southeast.
The
time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take
samples was very limited. The sites have been well travelled by other
individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other
possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the
investigation team.
It
should also be noted that militants still controlled the area after the alleged
attack and up to and including during the investigation by UN personnel. Any
tampering or planting of evidence would have been carried out by “opposition”
members – and surely the Syrian government would not point rockets in
directions that would implicate themselves.
3.
Chemical analysis suggests sarin likely came from controlled supply: The
Washington Post claims:
The
U.N. investigators analyzed 30 samples, which they found contained not just
sarin but also “relevant chemicals, such as stabilizers.” That suggests that
the chemical weapons were taken from a controlled storage environment, where
they could have been processed for use by troops trained in their use.
Only,
any staged attack would also need to utilize stabilized chemical weapons and
personnel trained in their use. From stockpiles looted in Libya, to chemical
arms covertly transferred from the US, UK, or Israel, through Saudi Arabia or
Qatar, there is no short supply of possible sources.
The
United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train
Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior
U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.
The
training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor
and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the
sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the
rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
4.
Cyrillic characters on the sides of the shells: The Washington Post claims:
The
Russian lettering on the artillery rounds strongly suggests they were
Russian-manufactured. Russia is a major supplier of arms to the Syrian
government, of course, but more to the point they are not a direct or indirect
supplier of arms to the rebels.
Additionally,
had the attacks been staged by terrorists or their Western backers,
particularly attacks whose fallout sought to elicit such a profound
geopolitical shift in the West’s favor, it would be assumed some time would be
invested in making them appear to have originated from the Syrian government.
The use of chemical weapons on a militant location by the militants themselves
would constitute a “false flag” attack, which by definition would require
some sort of incriminating markings or evidence to accompany the weapons used
in the barrage.
5.
The UN Secretary General’s comments on the report: The Washington Post itself
admits the tenuous nature of this final point, stating:
“This
is perhaps the most circumstantial case at all, but it’s difficult to ignore
the apparent subtext in Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s news conference
discussing the report…”
That
the Washington Post, and the interests driving its editorial board, could not
even produce 5 reasonably convincing arguments as to why the UN report somehow
implicates the Syrian government casts doubt on claims regarding the “wealth of
technical detail” pointing in President Bashar al-Assad’s direction.
The
UN report confirms that chemical weapons were used, a point that was not
contended by either side of the conflict, before or after the UN investigation
began. What the West is attempting to now do, is retrench its narrative behind
the report and once again create a baseless justification for continued
belligerence against Syria, both covert and as a matter of official foreign
policy.
Copyright © 2013 Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment