5 LIES INVENTED TO SPIN UN REPORT ON SYRIAN CHEMICAL
WEAPONS ATTACK
By Tony Cartalucci (LD) http://landdestroyer.blogspot.dk/2013/09/5-lies-invented-to-spin-un-report-on.html
Extract from:
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.
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 5 LIES
Lie 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.
LIE 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.
LIE 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.
LIE 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.
LIE 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.
--------------
By Tony Cartalucci (LD) http://landdestroyer.blogspot.dk/2013/09/5-lies-invented-to-spin-un-report-on.html
==================
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario