No announcement yet.

5 Lies Invented to Spin UN Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Smoky
    • Jun 2013
    • 1849

    5 Lies Invented to Spin UN Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

    5 Lies Invented to Spin UN Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack
    September 17, 2013

    Source: Tony Cartalucci, BLN Contributing Writer

    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 BBC's article, "US and UK insist UN chemicals report 'blames Syria'," again states unequivocally, [emphasis added]:

    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.

    What the Washington Post fails to mention are the "limitations" the UN team itself put on the credibility of their findings. On page 18 of the report (22 of the .pdf), the UN states [emphasis added]:

    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.

    Regarding "rebels" lacking the necessary training to handle chemical weapons - US policy has seen to it that not only did they receive the necessary training, but Western defense contractors specializing in chemical warfare are reported to be on the ground with militants inside Syria. CNN reported in their 2012 article, "Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons," that:

    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.

    The Washington Post's logic fails even at face value. Terrorists operating inside of Syria also possess rifles and even tanks of Russian origin - stolen or acquired through a large network of illicit arms constructed by NATO and its regional allies to perpetuate the conflict.

    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.
  • Fred O'Malley
    • Apr 2013
    • 173553

    Syria Tells Russia It Has Proof Rebels Used Chemicals

    Russia will give the Security Council evidence implicating Syrian rebels in a chemical attack on 21 August, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said.

    Syrian officials supplied the evidence, which Mr Lavrov has not yet seen.

    A UN report released on Monday concluded the nerve agent sarin was used in the attack in Damascus, which the US blames on the Syrian regime.

    Russia has called the report one-sided and biased. The UN has hit back, saying its findings are "indisputable".

    The UN report did not apportion blame for the attack, which sparked diplomacy that culminated in a deal for Syria to hand over its chemical arsenal by mid-2014.

    The UK, France and the US now want the disarmament deal enshrined in a UN resolution backed by the threat of military force.

    But Russia, which has repeatedly cast doubt on the whether the regime carried out the attacks, has objected to any resolution authorising force.
    Continue reading the main story
    image of Jim Muir Jim Muir BBC News, Beirut

    The war of words over the use of chemical weapons in Syria - much of it aimed at saving face - was predictable. But the fact is that Russia persuaded Syria to declare its weapons and let them be destroyed. What counts now is what actually happens, not what people say.

    The first agreed deadline comes on Saturday, by which time Damascus is supposed to provide an inventory of its chemical arsenal. If that slides, doubts will start to grow about its sincerity, and Moscow's credibility.

    Before and since the Kerry-Lavrov agreement, Syria and Russia argued publicly that the rebels had used chemical weapons, either in the 21 August attack or elsewhere. But that did not prevent Syria agreeing to disarm at Moscow's behest.

    Meanwhile, fighting is continuing across Syria:

    Rebel groups are fighting each other in a town near the Turkish border, with al-Qaeda linked jihadists gaining the upper hand in a battle with the Free Syrian Army
    Unconfirmed video footage shows parts of Damascus being hit in air strikes
    The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said troops were battling rebels near the motorway leading to Damascus airport, and Kurdish gunmen had forced jihadists from a village in the north

    Mr Lavrov said there was plenty of evidence that pointed to rebel involvement in chemical attacks, including the Damascus assault.

    "We will discuss all this in the Security Council, together with the report which was submitted by UN experts and which confirms that chemical weapons were used. We will have to find out who did it," he said.

    Russia is Syria's most important international ally, and has three times blocked resolutions criticising the regime over the civil war in which the UN says more than 100,000 people have died.

    Behind the scenes of the OPCW chemical testing lab

    Earlier Mr Lavrov's deputy, Sergei Ryabkov, said he had been given the evidence during a trip to Syria.

    He said it needed to be analysed, and gave no details of its content.

    Mr Ryabkov criticised the UN report, saying it was "distorted" and "one-sided".

    "The basis of information upon which it is built is not sufficient, and in any case we would need to learn and know more on what happened beyond and above that incident of 21 August," he said.
    Continue reading the main story
    Syria's chemical weapons

    CIA believes Syria's arsenal can be "delivered by aircraft, ballistic missile, and artillery rockets"
    Syria believed to possess mustard gas, sarin, and tried to develop VX gas
    Syria has agreed to join Chemical Weapons Convention; it signed Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1972 but never ratified

    Sources: CSIS, RUSI

    UN findings analysed
    Western military options
    Chemical weapons allegations

    "We are disappointed, to put it mildly, about the approach taken by the UN secretariat and the UN inspectors, who prepared the report selectively and incompletely."

    The UN inspectors were originally mandated to go to Syria to investigate three alleged chemical weapons attacks, at Khan al-Assal, Sheikh Maqsoud and Saraqeb.

    But they were later ordered to shift their focus to the Damascus incident, which was the most deadly chemical assault.

    They are due to return to Syria "within weeks" to complete their inquiry into the other attacks, and a report is due in October.

    Chief UN weapons inspector Ake Sellstrom, who wrote the report, told the BBC he thought Russia was not criticising the report itself but the process.

    He described Mr Ryabkov's criticism as a political matter, and therefore not his remit.

    Ban Ki-moon's office said the report's authors had the "fullest confidence" of the secretary general.

    "They have worked impartially and to the highest scientific standards despite the exceptionally difficult conditions of the war in Syria," said Mr Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky.
    Continue reading the main story
    “Start Quote

    The Russians and the Syrians are fighting on multiple fronts at the moment in the PR war”

    image of Daniel Sandford Daniel Sandford BBC News, Moscow

    Russian doubts on UN Syria dossier

    French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said he was surprised by the Russian reaction, adding: "Nobody can question the objectivity of the people appointed by the UN."

    Human Rights Watch has taken the trajectory of the rockets from the UN document and plotted their likely path.

    The rights group said the likely launch site for the missiles was in a government military compound.
    Government is a DISEASE - FREEDOM is the CURE
    Integrity is doing the right thing when no one else is watching.
    “Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth — more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid … Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.”Bertrand Russell, Why Men Fight


    • Fire Dog
      • Aug 2013
      • 1623

      The US used VX gas during Vietnam, so what are they complaining about?

      A good percentage of our 5 inch Naval shells were stenciled, 'VX'. One time I happened to be taking a message to the Captain, and walked smack dab into the gunny crew in Hazmat crews dealing with a leaking VX shell. They yelled at me to get the hell out of there. I hesitated for a moment and the Gunny Chief told me to move or he'd move me.

      Gunnies were not normally allowed into the Radio Shack, but in this case they were allowed in several times to check on me in the ensuing hours.


      • Randolph Dilloway
        • Jun 2013
        • 1849

        Two Things You May Not Know About Syria

        September 14, 2013|Posted By Adam Sharp
        Two Things You May Not Know About Syria

        1) Washington has been financing opposition groups in Syria since at least 2006, as exposed by Wikileaks in 2011. From WaPo:

        The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.

        2) Syria’s relationship with the U.S. broke down when it opposed the Iraq war in 2003. From the State Department:

        In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 the Syrian Government began limited cooperation with United States in the global war against terrorism. However, Syria opposed the Iraq war in March 2003, and bilateral relations with the United States swiftly deteriorated. In December 2003, President Bush signed into law the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which provided for the imposition of a series of sanctions against Syria if Syria did not end its support for Palestinian terrorist groups, end its military and security interference in Lebanon, cease its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and meet its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.

        Syria is no model nation, but some balance and background are sorely needed in this debate. Even people in the DoD I’ve spoken with scoff at the idea of this as a civil war in the traditional sense. It is an invasion by mercenaries financed by third party nations, technically speaking. Not a civil war.

        Though some progress has been made, the deal is tenuous. The CIA is still funneling weapons to rebel groups. It is far from being resolved, and the risks of further intervention are real.


        • Fire Dog
          • Aug 2013
          • 1623

          'Rolling back Syria' is a plan written for Benjamin Netanyahu by Richard Perle, neo con extraordinaire'. The document 'A Clean Break Agenda' spells out the plan....

          Edit: Vid didn't embed....

          Last edited by Fire Dog; 10 Oct 2013, 17:20.


          • Aldolphus Mueller
            Proud Neo-Amish!
            • Aug 2013
            • 1494

            Found this image. Not all of the military are buying the propaganda and this guy is a chief petty officer. Judging by his ribbons he's been in for some time now.

            Consider Linux as your OS of choice and save a little privacy. Save money too.
            Do not assume I agree with the opinions made by other posters in these forums. They own their opinions, I own mine.
            My Right of Free Speech is secured, NOT GRANTED, by the First Amendment and state and federal constitutions.

            I do not provide legal advice. If you need legal advice see a lawyer


            • Randolph Dilloway
              • Jun 2013
              • 1849

              Syrian Army Base Rocked Again By Overnight Explosions, Israel Implicated

              Syrian Army Base Rocked Again By Overnight Explosions, Israel Implicated
              Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/31/2013 08:03 -0400

              The last time major explosions were reported near Damascus, it was in May when Israel and its air force did everything in their power to provoke the Assad regime to escalate military operations both domestically and abroad. It almost succeeded when three months later Obama nearly led a falseflag-driven "liberation" force facilitating Saudi and Qatari energy interests in the region and their pipeline ambitions below Syria. Since then Israel had been largely dormant, seething in its (and Saudi) disappointment that it was unable to play Obama like a fiddle.

              The unstable detente changed again overnight, when as Haaretz reports "a large explosion was heard at a Syrian army missile base in Latakia. Eye witnesses told the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human rights that the explosion took place near Snobar Jableh, south of the city. It was not yet clear whether anyone was wounded in the strike." And not surprisingly, it is once again Israel' that was implicated in the latest regional provocation because as Haaretz adds, the "strike follows Lebanese media reports that Israeli aircraft circled above southern Lebanon."

              "The official Lebanese news agency reported that Israeli aircrafts were sighted on multiple occasions Wednesday in the south of the country. According to the report, which was based on a press statement by the Lebanese army, the airplanes entered Lebanese airspace at around 1:40 P.M. and circled over various places before leaving over the Mediterranean Sea near Tripoli and Naqoura at 5 P.M."

              From Haaretz:

              A Facebook page run by Syrian rebels claimed that the strike occurred at around 7 P.M. According to the page, a missile was fired from the sea and struck the Syrian base but did not result in any casualties. Israeli sources declined to comment on the reports.

              Last week, Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jarida reported that Israeli fighter planes had bombed a shipment of missiles in the border area between Lebanon and Syria. The report, which according to the paper was based on sources in Jerusalem, has no confirmation from any other source.

              The source told the newspaper that the missiles that were destroyed were of an advanced model and were designated for Hezbollah, as part of the strengthening of the organization's missile system. It is not clear whether the attack was carried out on Lebanese territory or on Syrian territory.

              Israel refused to comment officially on the publication in the Kuwaiti newspaper, whose reliability is questionable.

              While hardly surprising if Israel is confirmed as the offending party, a far bigger question is what are next steps: because unlike before, Putin has now very officially made Syria his protectorate, even as the US protective influence over both Syria and the region in general was waned substantially in the past few months. But perhaps more surprising is the desperation with which Israel is once again trying to destabilize the region. One thing that is clear: while such provocative actions may have yielded results as recently as half a year ago, Israel will need to put far more energy into comparable actions in the future, whether they target Syria or Iran, as the public opinion's threshold for unwarranted Israel offensive action has dropped substantially since the bundled US foreign policy escapade in Syria which was an unmitigated disaster for the US-Saudi-Qatar-Israel axis.


              Latest Posts


              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by WNF News Bot, 9 hours ago
              0 responses
              Last Post WNF News Bot  
              Started by Reynolds, 15 hours ago
              1 response
              Last Post Reynolds  
              Started by WNF News Bot, 10 hours ago
              0 responses
              Last Post WNF News Bot  
              Started by Reynolds, 10 hours ago
              0 responses
              Last Post Reynolds  
              Started by Reynolds, 11 hours ago
              0 responses
              Last Post Reynolds  
              LEGAL NOTICE: 
White Nations Forum is a Professional, Non-Violent, Progressive Pro-White Community. 
We promote White Civil Rights, White Self-Determination, and White Liberation via 100% legal activism. 
We do not promote, tolerate nor incite illegal activity. 
Signed Fred O'Malley (Owner)